SPEECH 


O  F 


HON.  JOHN  L.  HAW  SON, 


OF  PENNSYL 


TA  SI  A, 


ON 


THE  HOMEST 


SAD  BILL 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  ON  TUESDAY 


FEBRUARY 


4,  1854. 


I 


WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED  BY  ROBERT  ARMSTRONG. 

1854. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/speechofhonjohnl00daws_2 


SPEECH. 


3>3 


The  House  beiug  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  (Mr.  Olds  in  tho 
chair,)  and  having  under  consideration  the  bill  (No.  37)  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Agri¬ 
culture  by  Mr.  Dawson,  “  to  encourage  Agriculture,  Commerce,  Manufactures,  and  all  other 
branches  of  industry,  by  granting  to  every  man  who  is  the  head  of  a  family  and  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  a  homestead  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land,  out  of  the  public  domain, 
upon  condition  of  occupancy  and  cultivation  of  the  same  for  a  certain  specified  period  ” — 

Mr.  DAWSON  addressed  the  House  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman  :  The  disposition  of  the  public  domain,  and  especially 
in  the  mode  suggested  and  provided  for  in  the  bill  now  under  consid¬ 
eration,  and  commonly  known  as  the  “  Homestead  bill,”  involves  a 
policy  of  vast  importance,  and  which,  I  trust,  will  receive  the  full  de¬ 
liberation  as  well  as  the  favorable  action  of  this  House.  Whether  con¬ 
sidered  with  reference  to  the  change  which  it  proposes  in  our  land 
polic}^,  to  its  effects  in  developing  the  resources  of  the  nation,  or  to  the 
benefits  which  it  proposes  to  confer  upon  a  large  class  of  our  fellow- 
citizens,  who  yet  merit  this  treatment  at  our  hands,  there  is  none  to 
which  the  proposition  contained  in  this  bill  yields  in  importance. 

I  propose,  upon  this  occasion,  to  offer  little  more  in  the  wray  of  argu¬ 
ment  and  illustration  to  what  I  had  the  honor  of  before  advancing  in 
this  place  upon  the  subject  under  consideration.  But  I  confess  to  an 
interest  in  the  principles  of  this  bill,  and  their  enactment  into  law. 
which  is  paramount,  I  will  venture  to  say,  to  every  other  which,  at  the 
present  session,  is  at  all  likely  to  engageour  attention.  The  persuasion 
that  it  is  a  measure  of  great  public  interest;  the  consciousness  that,  as 
a  legislative  body,  we  possess  the  power  of  benefiting,  to  an  incalcula¬ 
ble  extent,  both  physically  and  morally,  and  for  generations  yet  to  come, 
a  large  class  of  our  fellow-men  ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  the  nation  at 
large  is  strengthened  and  improved  in  a  still  greater  degree,  both  so¬ 
cially  and  as  a  State,  is  sufficient  to  awaken  in  us  the  patriotic  desire 
that  this  power  may  be  speedily  exerted.  An  enlarged  and  liberal 
view  of  the  varied  interests  of  society,  a  common  country  and  a  com¬ 
mon  destiny,  invoke  us  with  a  voice  all  too  loud  for  denial,  for  the 
establishment  of  a  measure  at  once  so  wholesome  and  just.  The  deep 
interest  which,  in  these  aspects  of  the  measure,  I  feel  in  its  success,  is 
the  cause  of  my  again  pressing  it  upon  your  consideration. 

That  we  may  proceed  more  intelligently  in  the  further  discussion  of 
the  subject,  it  may  be  expedient  to  advert  briefly  to  the  state  in  which 
it  was  left  by  the  debates  of  the  last  session.  And,  in  the  first  place, 
I  would  notice  the  objections  which,  with  such  indefatigable  diligence 
and  research,  and  such  pre-eminent  ability,  it  has  been  attacked  both  in 
this  House  and  the  other  wing  of  the  Capitol.  If  those  able  objectors 
have  not  shown  conclusive  reasons  for  rejecting  this  measure,  it  can 
onty  be  because  the  reasons  for  its  passage  are  irresistible  and  over¬ 
whelming. 

The  objections  have  been  as  various  as  the  local  interests,  real  or 
imagined,  which,  with  a  policy  much  too  narrow  for  the  question,  they 
have  been  so  pertinaciously  urged,  while  the  great  opposing  argument  has 


4 

been  based  upon  an  anxious  avowal  of  regard  for  the  integrity  and  pu¬ 
rity  of  the  constitution. 

While  the  language  of  the  constitution,  in  the  third  section  of  the 
fourth  article,  is  plain  and  explicit  in  its  grant  of  power  over  the  whole- 
subject  of  the  public  domain,  we  think  it  right  to  regard  the  conditions 
imposed  by  the  deeds  of  cession  from  the  States  of  Massachusetts,  Con¬ 
necticut,  New  York,  and  South  Carolina,  as  abrogated  by  this  full  grant 
of  power.  If  embraced  at  all  in  the  term  engagements  in  another 
clause,  by  which  it  is  sought  to  restrain  this  power,  it  surely  can  have 
no  application  to  those  cessions,  as  in  the  case  of  North  Carolina  and 
Georgia,  made  after  the  adoption  of  the  federal  compact,  and  those  im¬ 
measurably  greater  tracts  of  territory  embraced  in  the  purchase  of 
Louisiana  from  France,  under  the  treaty  of  1803,  and  of  the  Floridas 
from  Spain,  under  the  treaty  of  1819,  and  the  immense  regions  of  Cal¬ 
ifornia  and  New  Mexico,  acquired  by  the  triumph  of  our  arms — by  the 
blood  of  the  patriot,  and  the  common  treasure  of  the  country.  To  ob¬ 
tain  a  uniform  rule  of  construction,  then,  with  reference  to  the  whole  of 
the  public  domain,  it  is  as  un philosophical  as  unnecessary  to  look  fur¬ 
ther  than  this  grant  of  the  constitution,  which  is  plenary  over  the  whole 
subject. 

But,  admitting  the  binding  force  of  the  deeds  of  cession  to  the  full 
extent  claimed  for  them  by  those  who  make  them  the  ground  of  their 
opposition,  and  what  is  the  requirement  imposed  by  those  unyielding 
conditions'?  It  is,  in  substance,  that  the  proceeds  of  the  ceded  terri¬ 
tories  shall  be  applied  for  the  “ general  welfare,”  and  thus  the  whole 
question  is  resolved  into  one  of  expediency. 

It  has  been  alleged  that  these  lands  are  all  pledged  to  the  creditors 
of  the  government,  and  that  we  have  no  right  to  diminish  their  security. 
That  although  they  have  reimbursed  the  value  paid  lor  them,  and  the 
expenses  of  survey  and  management,  and  have  returned  during  the 
half  century  past  a  net  proceed  to  the  treasury  of  more  than  fifty  mil¬ 
lions  of  dollars,  the  lands  are  still  encumbered  with  the  various  liens  of 
the  government  creditors.  A  heavy  national  debt  of  more  than  fifty- 
six  millions  of  dollars,  it  is  said,  hangs  over  us,  besides  other  millions 
to  claimants  for  French  spoliations,  which  we  impair  our  resources  to 
meet,  by  granting  the  public  lands  in  limited  quantities  to  actual  settlers. 

These,  and  the  construction  of  a  vast  naval  power,  and  most  ex¬ 
pensive  system  of  coast  defences,  have  been  held  up  as  the  legitimate 
sinks  for  all  the  proceeds  of  these  lands  for  all  time  to  come.  But  in 
opposition  to  this  view,  it  can  be  shown  that  with  a  treasury  overflow¬ 
ing — $15,514,589  75  of  the  national  debt  anticipated  and  redeemed 
since  the  4th  of  March  last — $7,391,708  20  of  which  at  a  premium  oi 
21  per  cent.,  and  an  accumulated  surplus  on  the  8th  of  February 
instant,  subject  to  draft,  of  $25,029,046  29  still  in  the  national  exchequer, 
the  proceeds  of  the  customs  afford  the  most  ample  security  to  the  pub¬ 
lic  creditor. 

But,  sir,  the  great  argument  so  long  urged,  and  with  such  pretence 
of  reason,  that  the  creditors  of  the  government  would,  by  such  a 
measure  as  this,  lose  the  main  security  for  their  loans,  has,  by  the  ex¬ 
tinction  of  the  debt  of  the  Revolution,  for  the  discharge  of  which  they 
were  specially  pledged  by  the  deeds  of  cession,  lost  all  its  point  and 


tmf 

o 


vigor.  And  if  we  still  have  some  millions  of  public  debt,  all  of  recent 
origin,  who  now  seriously  thinks  of  this  in  comparison  with  the  variety 
and  extent  of  our  financial  resources  as  offering  an  obstacle  to  expendi¬ 
ture,  for  whatever  purpose  sought? 

But  granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  all  the  claims  just  men¬ 
tioned  are  worthy  of  our  attention,  it  can  be  very  easily  shown  that  we 
do  not,  by  the  passage  of  this  bill,  impair  our  ability  to  meet  those  de¬ 
mands.  It  requires  but  little  observation  to  know  that  land  in  the 
wilderness,  or  in  an  unsettled  or  unimproved  locality,  acquires  value 
just  in  proportion  as  that  locality  may  b£  dotted  with  settlements  and 
improvements.  Suppose,  then,  that  of  the  nine  millions  of  quarter-sec¬ 
tions  which  the  government  owns,  exclusive  of  that  in  California  and 
New  Mexico,  one  million  of  alternate  quarter-sections  shall  be  occupied 
by  actual  settlers  within  the  next  ten  or  twenty  years  under  the  opera¬ 
tion  of  this  bill,  then  it  is  not  at  all  extravagant  to  calculate  that  in  the 
same  space  of  time  the  million  of  intervening  quarter-sections  will  be 
at  least  doubled  in  value;  so  that  by  tfye  time  the  government  is  dis¬ 
posed  to  sell,  her  landed  resources  will  be  the  same  as  before.  This 
assumption  has  sustained  the  policy  and  formed  the  basis  upon  which 
Congress,  by  numerous  grants,  has  given,  for  the  construction  of  canals, 
railroads,  internal  improvements,  and  the  improvement  of  navigable 
streams,  18,553,700  acres,  while  the  aggregate  donations  and  grants  in 
the  several  States  and  Territories  up  to  the  30th  June,  1853,  amounts 
to  129,195,983.* * * § 


*  Statement  of  donations ,  grants,  8?c.,  of  public  lands  in  the  several  States  and  Territories  up  to 

the  30 th  June,  1853. 


States  and  Terri¬ 
tories. 

Donations  and  grants 
for  schools,  univer¬ 
sities,  &c. 

Grants  for  deaf  and 
dumb  asylums. 

Grants  for  internal  im-  ; 
provements. 

_ i 

r/j 

*5 

»*■'  ^ 

•jZ  ci 

.£  2" 

£  § 

(mm 

oj 

o 

»  O 

m 

o 

W  -3 

ri  5 
a  to  , 

■-m  C  SC 
,0  5C 

3  2§ 

CL  Qj 

,rK 

W 

Grants  for  military  ser-  j 
vices. 

Swamp  lands  granted 
to  States. 

1 

Railroad  grants. 

O'! 

E- 

Ohio  . . 

Indiana . 

Illinois . 

Missouri . 

Alabama . 

Mississippi . 

Louisiana . 

Michigan . 

Arkansas . 

Florida . 

Iowa . 

Wisconsin . 

California . 

727,528 
673:357 
1,001,795 
1,222,179 
925,814 
860,624 
832, 124 
l.  113,477 
'932,540 
954.583 
95  g  224 
1,004,728 
6,765,404 
5,089,244 
12,186,987 
7,493,120 
6,681,707 

21,949 

2,097 

20,924 

1,243,001 
1,609,861 
500,000 
500' 000 
500,000 
500,000 
500,000 
1,250.000 
500, 000 
500,000 
fl, 385, 078 
929,736 
500.000 
J340: 000 
. 

32,141 

843 

954 

1,981 
15,965 
8,412 
4.080 
139; 366 
52.;  1 14 
18,226 
5,705 

2,  .760 
2,360 
2, 360 
1,620 
1,980 

13,’  900 
10,600 
6,940 

3,  MO 
6,400 

1,771,263 
1.200,656 
8,745,930 
2, 131,963 
740,084 
155.383 
507, 470 
946.803 
1,627.433 
272; 519 
4,284,173 
2,360,937 

§25,640 
§1.286,827 
||1 : 833.412 
§2,178,716 
§2, 595 
§1,824,812 
§9,771,275 
§6,788, 124 
§8,690,016 
§2,065,605 
§71,958 
|  j  1,259, 269 
Noestimat 

2,595,053 
2,442,240 
' 230. 400 
549, 120 

2, 189,200 

•  ••••••••a 

•  «••••  •••• 

e  or  report. 

3,799,575- 
4,774,106 
14,679,706 
8,477,658 
2,424,445 
3,907,184 
11,619,282 
10,115,685 
li;  091,253 
3, 871,986 
6,714,500 
.  5,566,775 
7,265,404 
5,526,604 
12, 186,987 
7,493,120 
6,681,707 

Minnesota  Ter. . . 
Oregon . 

97, 360 

New  Mexico . 

. 

Utah . 

Northwest . 

r  < 

Nebraska . 

. 

j 

Indian . 

•  *  f  •  •  1 . 

Totals . 

. 

1 

49,416,435 

1 

*44,971  10,757,677 

279,792 

1 

50,860  24,841,979 

1 

35,798,254 

8,006,013 

129,195,985 

NoTii. — Fractional  parts  arc  omitted  in  some  of  the  above  columns,  but  are  aggregated  in  the  totals. 

*  Not  finally  closed. 

j  Includes  t  he  estimated  quantity  of  560,000  acres  of  the  Des  Moines  river  grant,  situated  in  this  State  between* 
the  Racoon  Fork  and  source  of  said  river. 

t  1s  the  estimated  quantity  of  340,000  acres  of  the  Dcs  Moines  river  grant,  situate  in  this  Territory  as  above. 

§  Repoited  by  State  authorities. 

J]  Estimated. 


6 


But,  sir,  it  was  also  shown  at  the  last  session,  with  a  fullness  of  de¬ 
tail  which  renders  it  unnecessary  that  I  should  dwell  upon  it  now,  that, 
with  a  view  of  enhancing  the  general  receipts  into  the  treasury,  by 
stimulating  production  and  extending  the  basis  of  our  national  com¬ 
merce,  the  ability  of  the  government,  under  our  present  revenue 
system  of  thirty  per  cent.,  to  meet  all  the  expenditures  warranted  by  a 
just  administration,  would  be  largely  increased;  and,  to  that  end,  the 
scheme  proposed  is  the  very  best  which  could  be  adopted.  It  has 
been  argued,  again,  that  the  passage  of  such  a  measure  will  tend,  in 
Its  operation,  to  the  injury  of  investments  already  made  in  agriculture, 
by  reducing  the  price  of  improved  lands,  and  by  over-production.  I 
believe  that  such  fears  are  entirely  groundless.  The  number  of  persons 
who  could  avail  themselves  of  the  benefits  of  this  bill  are  too  few  in 
comparison,  and  their  effort  to  do  so  would  be  too  gradual,  to  produce 
any  marked  effect  of  the  kind  apprehended.  The  cultivated  lands  of 
the  old  States  are  too  remote  irom  the  wild  lands  of  the  West  and 
-South  to  feel  the  effect  of  the  competition.  It  may  be  added,  too,  that 
In  the  frontier  settlements  some  years  elapse  before  the  production  ex¬ 
ceeds  the  consumption.  An  additional  and  forcible  answer  to  the 
objection  is  to  be  found  in  the  geographical  position  of  the  old  States — 
their  contiguity  and  approximation  to  the  seaboard — their  accumulated 
wealth,  and  the  energy  with  which  they  are  constantly  opening  new 
avenues  of  communication,  affording  a  quick  and  convenient  transit  for 
all  kinds  of  agricultural  products.  The  history  of  the  times,  our  ex¬ 
tended  and  extending  commerce,  with  the  condition  of  the  markets, 
and  the  high  prices  which  every  species  of  agricultural  production 
commands,  is  an  illustration  of  this  truth. 

The  year  1847  was  distinguished  as  the  “famine  year,”  and  for  high 
prices.  Since  then,  and  up  to  the  30th  of  June,  1S53,  the  government 
has  disposed  of  for  cash,  and  in  grants  to  the  States  of  swamp  lands  for 
schools,  for  railroads,  for  bounty  lands  actually  located,  114,746,000 
•acres  of  the  public  lands,  five  per  cent,  of  which,  it  may  be  assumed, 
has  been  brought  under  cultivation ;  and,  with  a  tenfold  increased  fa¬ 
cility  of  reaching  the  seaboard,  prices  are  largely  maintained,  agricul¬ 
ture  is  eminently  prosperous,  and  the  price  of  improved  lands  every¬ 
where  advancing. 

It  is  contended,  indeed,  that  instead  of  being  a  bill  for  the  encourage¬ 
ment  of  agriculture,  manufactures,  and  commerce,  as  it  proposes,  this 
would  be  more  truly  denominated  a  bill  for  the  destruction  of  all  those 
great  interests.  It  is  said  that  the  people  are  the  best  judges  of  their 
own  interests,  and  that  inducements  held  out  to  interfere  with  the  reg¬ 
ular  course  of  industry,  or  to  divert  it  from  its  old  channels,  are  founded 
on  false  notions  of  political  economy,  and  fraught  with  evil.  Agricul¬ 
ture  will  suffer,  manufactures  will  suffer,  by  an  abstraction  of  labor 
from  their  respective  pursuits.  We  trust  to  have  shown  the  unreasona¬ 
bleness  of  the  objection  as  regards  the  first  of  these  interests.  Let  us 
consider  a  moment  how  stands  the  case  with  the  others. 

Manufactures,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  are  carried  on  chiefly  in  the 
thickly-populated  districts  of  the  country,  and  especially  in  the  large 
cities,  where  there  is  a  numerous  population  that  have  no  regular  means 
of  procuring  their  daily  bread.  It  is  very  apparent  that  the  with- 


7 


drawal  of  a  large  class  of  the  laboring  population  from  these  pursuits 
will  only  make  room  for  another  class  st  11  more  needy.  It  was  never, 
for  a  moment,  supposed  that  such  persons  would  be  enabled  immedi¬ 
ately  to  settle  in  crowds  on  the  public  l^nds.  It  is  enough  if  the  door  of 
hope  be  thrown  open  to  them  ,*  enough  Ithat  from  the  degradation  of 
social  inequality  a  pathway  may  be  afbrded  them  to  a  higher  and 
better  condition.  Such  hopes,  I  believe  will  be  presented  by  the  grad- . 
ual  withdrawal  of  those  among  the  laboring  classes  who,  having  the 
means  and  the  inclination,  betake  themselves  to  an  agricultural  life, 
and  by  the  consequent  demand  for  new!  persons  to  fill  the  places  of 
those  who  have  left.  Nor  can  it  be  saic  that  such  an  effect  would  be 
but  temporary,  and  that  the  evils  which  were  for  the  moment  removed 
by  the  operation  of  this  measure  woild  presently  return  with  in¬ 
creased  malignity.  Make  this  bill  yoir  permanent  policy,  and  the 
social  system  having  once  been  corrected  and  strengthened  by  its 
working,  will,  from  a  continuance  of  the  cause,  be  likely  to  be  kept 
so. 

But  while  it  will  be  no  worse  for  tb 3  manufacturing  interest  while 
this  change  is  taking  place,  it  will  certainly  tend  greatly  to  the  advan¬ 
tage  of  that  interest  when  the  change  siall  have  been  once  completed. 
This,  because  with  every  additional  settler  upon  the  public  lands, 
springs  up,  of  course,  an  additional  demand  for  the  products  of  manu¬ 
factures. 

But  whatever  benefits  the  agriculturd  and  manufacturing  interests 
must,  in  a  corresponding  degree,  assist  those  of  commerce,  which  is 
only  the  agent  for  distributing  the  products  of  both  the  others.  And 
thus  it  would  seem,  at  last,  that  the  trufe  character  of  this  measure  was 
not  inaptly  proclaimed  by  its  title. 

To  proceed,  however,  to  a  more  specific  detail  of  the  general  objec¬ 
tion,  let  me  first  observe,  by  the  way,  that  if  we  may  suppose  that  the 
momentary  effects  of  the  bill  were  ho  tile  to  the  interests  just  men¬ 
tioned,  would  it  not  be  as  just  that  capial  should  feel  that  momentary 
inconvenience,  as  that  labor — industry- -should  forever  struggle  against 
a  disadvantage  not  self-induced,  but  ar  incident  of  that  inequality  of 
condition  which  is  the  result  ot  all  human  society  hitherto,  and  effected 
in  many  cases,  it  may  be,  by  an  unequil  system  of  legislation?  Allow 
me  to  say,  that  if  this  bill  be,  as  some  1  muld  allege,  a  bonus  from  capi¬ 
tal  to  labor,  it  is  one  which  she  can  w<ll  afford  to  make,  and  which 
will  be  returned  with  a  satisfactory  interest. 


But  it  has  been  urged,  again,  that 


this  bill  embodies  a  mistaken 


policy  with  reference  to  its  beneficiaries.  It  is  said  you  cannot  force 
men  into  any  pursuit  against  their  inclination  or  natural  fitness  for  it; 
that  most  of  the  persons  whom  suchla  measure  as  this  might  be  ex¬ 
pected  to  benefit  are  unfit,  both  physijcally  and  by  education,  or  pre¬ 
vious  pursuits,  for  tilling  the  earth.  IiJsupport  of  this  view,  we  are  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  case  of  the  British  soldiers  who  were  donated  lands  on  the 
St.  John’s  river,  in  New  Brunswick,  and  which  shows,  it  is  thought,  by 
its  present  thriftless  condition,  the  absurdity  of  attempting  by  bounties  to 
make  valuable  cultivators  of  the  soil.  But  the  example  is  surely  un¬ 
fortunate  for  the  cause  of  the  objectors.  Because  a  regiment  of  British 
soldiers — a  class  of  people  everywhere  averse  to  all  civil  pursuits — 


8 


presented  with  a  small  strip  of  land  in  an  inhospitable  valley  of  the 
Northeast,  and  under  monarchical  institutions,  fail,  as  an  experiment, 
therefore  it  is  i utile  and  ridiculous,  by  conferring  lands  upon  actual 
settlers  in  the  United  States,  allowing  them  unrestricted  liberty  ot 
choice  through  almost  twenty  degrees  of  latitude,  and  with  the  most 
genial  climate,  and  institutions  the  most  desirable  ever  established  in 
any  nation,  to  hope  for  a  better  result !  I  apprehend  that  but  little 
force  will  accompany  such  reasoning  to  the  minds  of  Americans.  A 
similar  two-fold  application  has  that  maxim  which  we  have  frequently, 
in  the  course  of  the  debate  upon  the  bill,  heard  urged  with  confidence 
as  conclusive  against  its  provisions.  We  are  told  that  we  cannot  do 
indirectly  what  we  cannot  da  directly;  that  as  it  is  only  indirectly 
that  this  measure  can  pretend  to  benefit  the  great  interests  of  the 
country,  that,  therefore,  this  objection  is  fatal  to  its  pretensions.  This 
sort  of  view  seems,  with  some  gentlemen,  to  apply  well  enough  when 
the  public  lands  are  under  consideration ;  but  its  point  seems  quite  for¬ 
gotten  when  the  question  is  corcerning  the  benefits  which  the  system  of 
high  duties  confers  upon  the  inlustry  of  the  country;  though  if  it  do  so 
at  all,  it  must  be  indirectly.  No  one  can  doubt  that  the  protective 
policy  takes  money  from  the  consumer;  whether  it  afterwards  restores 
more  than  it  takes,  is  another  cuestion. 

Another  objection  to  this  measure  is  the  effect  which  it  is  expected 
to  have  in  reducing  not  only  ttm  price  of  lands  in  the  old  States,  but  of 
all  the  grants  heretofore  made  in  the  new  States,  whether  for  eleemosv- 
nary  or  educational  purposes  ;  or  internal  improvements,  or  as  military 
bounty  lands.  What  with  such  ostentatious  benevolence,  it  is  said, 
you  bestow  with  one  hand,  in  entire  recklessness  of  good  faith,  yrou 
with  the  other  retract.  The  old  soldier,  instead  of  being  presented 
with  bread,  will  find  that  he  has  received  nothing  but  a  “stone.”  This 
would  indeed  prove  a  formidable  objection,  if  were  anything  more  than 
what  might  be  supposed  to  present  itself  at  the  first  blush  of  the  subject, 
but  which  a  very  little  reflecton  might  well  be  supposed  to  dissipate. 
But  lor  one  feature  of  the  bill,  iideed,  the  force  of  the  objection  could  not 
well  be  gainsaid.  With  the  restriction,  however,  that  the  public  lands 
shall  be  occupied  by  actual  settlers  only  in  alternate  quarter-sections,  . 
we  believe  the  interests  ol  former  recipients  of  the  public  bounty  will 
enjoy  ample  protection.  By  the  grams  of  alternate  sections  to  rail¬ 
roads,  and  by  similar  grants  o'  quarter-sections  to  actual  settlers  now 
proposed,  there  is  still  the  same  quantity  of  lands  which  cannot  be 
settled  under  the  operation  o:’  either  class  of  grants  reserved  to  the 
government.  All  these  alternate  sections  of  the  government,  which  by 
the  construction  of  public  improvements,  and  by  those  of  actual 
settlers,  will  be  speedily  and  greatlv  enhanced  in  value,  can  only  be 
purchased  at  high  prices  at  public  sale,  or  else  taken  up  by  land  war¬ 
rants.  This  liability  to  absorption  by  land  warrants  it  is  which  must 
forever  prevent  the  depreciation  of  the  latter  ;  for  it  is  by  means  of  them 
alone  that  lands  which  will  often  be  worth  several  times  the  govern¬ 
ment  price  of  $1  25  per  acre,  can  be  obtained  only  at  the  market  value 
of  the  warrant.  So,  also,  everywhere  in  the  vicinity  ot  these  settle¬ 
ments  in  the  new  States  and  the  Territories  the  value  of  improved  lands 
will  naturally  increase.  It  is  not  merely  the  fact  of  getting  the  land  for 


9 


nothing  which  is  going  to  tempt  multitudes  into  the  wilderness.  The 
superior  advantages  in  point  of  education  and  physical  comfort  will 
weigh  with  many  who  possess  the  means  to  stop  short  among  populous 
communities.  It  is  not  every  one  who  wishes,  any  more  than  he  is 
capacitated,  to  enter  into  a  struggle  with  the  primitive  forests  and  the 
prairie  wilds. 

Other  objections  to  the  bill  in  its  present  shape  are,  the  restraint  im¬ 
posed  by  the  second  section  upon  alienation,  the  condition  of  live  years’ 
residence  before  the  occupant  can  receive  a  title  to  the  land,  and  the 
exempting  of  it  from  sale  for  debts  contracted  previous  to  the  settle¬ 
ment.  Ail  such  restrictions,  it  has  been  urged,  are  against  the  whole 
policy  of  our  laws,  and  most  unwise.  It  is  expected,  too,  that  when 
the  Territories  are  erected  into  States,  these  conditions  imposed  by  the 
general  government  will  interfere  or  conflict  with  the  local  laws,  and 
also  that  they  will  tend  to  create  a  perpetuity  of  the  same  kind  as  the 
English  system  of  entails.  We  have  been  told,  that  where  the  grantor 
parts  with  his  whole  interest  in  the  grant,  it  is  contrary  to  the  rule  of 
the  common  law  that  he  should  at  the  si  me  time  be  permitted,  in  any 
wise,  to  tie  up  the  hands  of  the  grantee;  xnd  that  from  the  right  of  Con¬ 
gress,  taking  it  in  its  fullest  latitude,  to  cispose  of  the  public  territory, 
the  right  of  disposing  of  it,  so  contrary  to  our  common  law  system, 
cannot  reasonably  be  inferred.  But  what  does  this  restriction  amount 
to?  Why,  merely  that  lor  five  years  tke  settler  shall  not  receive  his 
title.  In  accordance  with  the  great  object  which  she  has  steadily  pur¬ 
sued  from  the  beginning,  the  government  makes  him  a  grant  of  land 
upon  condition  of  settlement,  and  only  exacts  that  it  shall  be  a  bona 
fide  settlement,  by  making  five  years’  residence  and  cultivation  the  evi¬ 
dence  of  this.  Is  such  a  restriction,  so  manifestly  for  the  benefit  of  the 
public  as  of  the  individual,  inconsistent  vith  the  policy  of  the  common 
law?  And  the  condition  which  prevent;  the  land  from  coming  under 
legal  sale  for  any  debt  contracted  previous  to  the  reception  of  the 
patent  for  the  land — is  there  anything  more  in  this  than  the  enabling  the 
settler  to  start  clear  of  incumbrances,  which  would  otherwise,  in  many 
cases,  paralyze  his  efforts  to  improve  his  condition,  even  though  aided 
by  this  kindly  provision  of  his  government? 

But — as  regards  the  position  that  grants  with  such  conditions  an¬ 
nexed  are  unknown  to  our  law — what,  I:t  us  ask,  are  the  deeds  ol  ces¬ 
sion  themselves  which  have  been  so  mu:h  in  the  mouths  ol  gentlemen 
in  connexion  with  this  subject,  and  by  w  iich  the  old  States  ceded  their 
wild  lands  to  the  general  government?  Did  those  deeds  not  part  with 
the  whole  interest  of  the  grantors  in  thoie  lands,  and  vet  was  it  not  ac- 
companied  with  the  condition  that  the  proceeds  of  those  lands  should 
be  applied  for  the  “general  welfare  ?”  Then,  by  the  operation  of  this 
rule,  it  appears  that  these  much  mooted  conditions  are  at  last  invalid, 
and  that  the  grants  from  the  States  inure  to  the  general  government 
unincumbered  with  conditions. 

It  is  urged,  however,  that  by  thus  J’etaining  a  control  over  these 
lands  after  they  shall  have  become  State  property,  and  liable  to  State 
taxation,  a  conflict  between  the  State  and  general  government  may  be 
anticipated.  And  yet,  by  the  ordinance  of  1787,  by  which  an  immense 
territory  was  converted  into  States,  the  general  government  still  retains 


10 


in  these  States  large  bodies  of  public  lands,  over  which  its  control  ex¬ 
tends;  but  where  is  the  conflict  of  laws  and  jurisdiction  apprehended? 

Another  objection  to  the  policy  of  this  bill  is  one  which  proposes  ro 
substitute  in  lieu  thereof  an  extension  of  the  present  pre-emption  prin¬ 
ciple.  Instead  of  calling  into  existence  a  community  of  freemen,  it 
proposes  to  establish  a  great  government  tenantry — a  system  of  per¬ 
petual  vassalage.  The  most  odious  feature  of  the  feudal  system,  and 
that  which  is  the  most  repugnant  to  all  our  institutions,  is  thus  sought 
to  be  incorporated  into  our  system  of  administering  the  public  lands ; 
and  the  settler  is  thus  to  become  the  perpetual  tenant  of  his  govern¬ 
ment.  Of  a  proposition  which  has  so  little  to  commend  it  to  the 
popular  judgment,  I  do  not  intend  to  consume  your  time  in  the  discus¬ 
sion.  I  would  only  remark  that,  if  put  forth  in  seriousness  as  the  great 
measure  which  the  occasion  demands,  it  seems  founded  upon  a  strange 
oversight  of  the  motives  and  principles  by  which  men  are  commonly 
governed.  The  love  of  property  is  one  of  the  strongest  principles  of 
the  human  breast,  and  the  prospect  of  its  acquisition  is  the  most  potent 
stimulus  to  industry  and  all  the  homely  virtues  which  it  is  possible 
to  supply.  Take  away  this  stimulus,  as  you  do  by  your  perpetual 
pre-emption,  and  you,  to  the  same  extent,  remove  the  inducement  to 
settlement.  Make  payment,  although  distant,  a  requisite  to  acquiring 
the  title,  and  you  deaden  to  a  fatal  degree  the  desire  and  the  effort  to 
do  so.  The  very  relation  of  such  a  vassalage  is  derogatory  in  the 
eyes  of  an  American  citizen,  liowever  humble.  At  an  early  day  in  the 
Senate,  Colonel  Benton  pror.ounced  the  true  character  of  tenantry, 
when  he  declared  that  “tenantry  is  unfavorable  to  freedom.  It  lays 
the  foundation  for  separate  orders  in  society,  annihilates  the  love  of 
country,  and  weakens  the  spirit  of  independence.  The  tenant  has,  in 
fact,  no  country,  no  hearth,  ro  domestic  altar,  no  household  god.” 

The  prejudices  of  the  people  are  against  every  such  policy;  and 
you  will  never,  by  any  such  provision,  foster  that  manly  independence 
which  attaches  to  the  absolute  proprietor' even  of  a  few  humble  acres. 
It  is  said  that  the  pre-emption  principle  is  preferable,  as  placing  it  out 
of  the  power  of  the  settler  to  injure  himself,  as  well  as  of  the  speculator 
to  reap  the  benefits  of  his  kdustry.  But  what!  has  it  come  to  this? 
Has  the  American  pioneer  lost  his  character  of  thrifty  shrewdness,  and 
must  needs  have  a  guardian  assigned  for  his  protection  ?  Sir,  let  us 
have  more  respect  for  this  adventurous  and  noble  class  of  our  fellow- 
citizens. 

But  a  greater  objection  then  any  we  have  yet  mentioned,  and  one 
more  calculated  to  oppress  the  measure  with  odium,  is  that  which 
stigmatizes  it  as  agrarian.  But  how  agrarian  ?  It  is  not  proposed  by 
this  bill  to  rob  any  man  of  a  particle  of  his  property.  It  does  not  pro¬ 
pose  a  limit  to  the  quantity  of  land  which  any  man  may  own ;  but 
simply  that  the  unoccupied  public  lands — at  least  such  portion  of  them 
as  is  deemed  expedient — may'foe  taken  by  whomsoever,  under  the 
provisions  of  the  bill,  will  incur  the  labor  of  reducing  them  under 
cultivation.  And,  although  such  a  disposition  of  them  may  be  regarded 
as  a  gift,  yet  the  sacrifices,  privations,  and  actual  toils  which  must 
be  necessarily  undergone  for  this  purpose,  are  in  fact  no  small  price 


11 


for  the  settler  to  pay.  If  there  be  agrarianism  in  this  bill,  it  is  of 
that  kind  which  levels  up,  and  not  that  which  levels  down.  It  is  of 
that  kind  which  every  philosopher  and  patriot,  from  Confucius  and 
Plato  down  to  Sir  Thomas  Moore,  and  Hobbes,  and  Harrington, 
and  Sidney,  and  Locke,  in  their  fervid  dreams  of  love  for  their  race, 
have  longed  and  labored  to  see  established  among  men.  Unlike  the 
distribution  proposed  by  the  Licinian  law,  which  fixed  the  quantity  of 
land  which  should  be  held  by  any  individual — unlike  that  division  of 
the  conquered  lands  among  the  Roman  soldiery  of'  Augustus’  time, 
whose  harsh  effects  upon  the  extruded  tenants  is  so  patheticalfy 
alluded  to  in  the  song  of  Virgil — the  distribution  proposed  by  this  bill 
is  only  of  lands  which  are  without  occudants,  a  large  part  of  which  are 
still  in  the  distant  wilderness,  and  which,  since  the  dawn  of  creation, 
have  been  sacred  to  the  wild  denizens  of  the  forest — here  and  there 
dotted  with  the  path  of  the  Indian  warrior,  and  were  never  yet  torn  by 
the  crooked  plough. 

So  far,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  spokin  only  of  the  objections  to  the 
passage  of  this  bill.  The  principal  of  these  we  have  endeavored  to 
state  with  candor,  and  to  treat  with  res)ect,  for  they  have  been  urged 
with  masterly  ability  and  perseverance  in  both  wings  of  this  Capitol. 
Justly  distinguished  as  are  the  gentlemen  who  oppose  this  measure,  they 
only  remind  us,  by  their  course,  of  those  early  navigators  who  forever 
timidly  hung  around  the  coasts  of  the  Mediterranean  and  the  west  or 
Europe,  afraid  to  launch  boldly  upon  the  broad  ocean,  which,  in  return 
for  their  trustfulness,  was  ready  to  heap*  them  to  the  shores  of'  a  new 
world.  With  similar  apprehensions,  these  dialectic  mariners  see  no 
lands  beyond  Lake  Erie  or  the  Mississippi,  or — wrapped  up  like  Ras- 
selas  in  the  Happy  Valley — they  cannot /lift  their  glances  beyond  the 
Allegh anies  or  the  waters  of  the  Ohio,  jo  closely  do  these  politicians 
steer  to  the  old  system  of  managing  the  piblic  lands,  against  the  opinions 
and  practice  of  the  most  conservative  anl  yet  democratic  of  our  states¬ 
men — of  Jackson,  of  Benton,  of  Cass,  cf  Douglas,  of  Walker,  afid  of 
Andrew  Johnson.  Like  intellectual  glad :  i tors,  they  waste  in  encounters 
of  skill  the  strength  and  adroitness  whicji  would  honorably  distinguish 
them  in  the  service  of  the  State.  In  a  ;pirit  too  conservative  for  the 
times,  they  seem  unwilling  to  realize  tha  in  the  great  valle\'  east  of  the 
Mississippi,  and  far  beyond  its  angry  witers,  towards  the  base  of  the 
great  mountain,  the  sun  is  shining  high  in  the  heavens,  and  that  man, 
in  his  mission  of  subduing  and  civilizing  the  earth,  is  hastening  to  and 
fro,  in  all  directions,  with  the  hurried 
battle. 

But  let  us  glance  at  the  positive  considerations  in  favor  of  this  measure. 
I  think  it  may  be  assumed  as  conclusive,  that  by  multiplying  individual 
interests,  this  bill  will  furnish  us  the  surest  and  strongest  guarantee 
against  agrarianism.  Agrarianism,  in  the  bad  sense  in  which  it  has 
been  charged,  if  it  mean  anything,  me^ns  taking  property  from  those 
who  have  it  and  distributing  it  among  those  who  have  none.  But  do 
not  the  objectors  see  that  the  more  you  multiply  individual  interests, 
however  small,  the  more  effectually  you  increase  the  number  of  those 
who  are  opposed  to  measures  of  levelling  distribution? 

It  was  the  conviction  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  from  his  observations  in  Europe, 
that  the  laws  of  primogeniture  and  entail  tended  to  an  accumulation  in 


tramp  of  armies 


marching 


to 


12 


a  few  hands  of  all  the  landed  property  of  the  kingdom,  and  to  an  entire 
separation  of  the  tenant  from  the  soil,  which  consequently  destroyed  the 
bond  of  attachment  to  the  government.  Hence  his  policy  of  repudiating 
all  such  partial  provisions  ;  and  in  every  production  which  subsequently 
fell  from  his  pen — from  the  charter  of  our  liberties  through  all  his 
messages  and  correspondence — his  care  for  equality  of  rights  shines 
conspicuous.  A  strong  -government  was  not  less  his  care  than  that  of 
his  federal  compatriots;  but  he  sought  for  that  strength,  not  in  investing 
a  privileged  few  with  force  to  control  the  masses,  but  by  a  system 
founded  upon  principles  of  justice  and  equality,  and  resting  firmly  in 
the  affections  of  the  people. 

So  far,  then,  from  being  levelling  in  its  tendency,  it  is  a  measure  the 
best  calculated  possible  to  create  a  great  conservative  interest  of  every¬ 
thing  valuable  in  our  institutions,  social  and  political.  By  this  bill,  if 
you  pass  it,  you  call  into  existence  a  great  community  of  freeholders, 
each  one  sovereign  within  the  limits  of  his  domain,  and,  as  regards  the 
security  of  his  political  and  civil  rights,  as  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the 
country.  Who  is  interested  in  upholding  the  government  and  institu¬ 
tions  of  the  country,  if  they,  the  holders  of  the  soil,  be  not  ?  If  you  wish 
to  increase  the  safeguards  of  the  nation — its  ability  to  repel  external 
aggression  as  well  as  preserve  internal  order — you  must  increase  the 
number  of  freehold  homes.  What  was  the  exhortation  so  common  in 
the  mouths  of  the  Roman  generals  when  addressing  their  countrymen 
on  the  eve  of  battle  against  an  invading  foe?  It  was,  “  Fight  for  3am r 
altars  and  your  firesides.”  This  measure,  therefore,  is  best  as  regards 
the  defences  of  the  country ;  for,  unlike  the  sea-girt  isles  of  the  British 
realm,  the  defences  of  this  magnificent  land  are  not  so  much  in  her 
“  wooden  walls  ”  or  her  fortifications ;  these  are,  indeed,  great  and 
important ;  but  insignificant  in  comparison  with  that  which  is  furnished 
by  the  living  ramparts  of  our  hardy  }momanry  and  laboring  population. 
They  it  is  which  are  the  life-blood  of  the  nation — who  twice  resisted 
successful^  the  disciplined  armies  of  England — who  recently  planted 
the  flag  of  their  country  in  triumph  upon  the  walls  of  the  far-distant  and 
ancient-renowned  city  of  the  Montezumas,  and  who  are  ever  ready  to 
present  an  impregnable  front  :o  every  foreign  assault. 

But,  sir,  the  measure  has  been  proven  best  as  regards  the  revenue  of 
the  country.  I  will  take  occasion  to  remind  my  auditors  that,  in  a 
speech  which  I  had  the  honor  to  make  from  this  place  at  the  last  ses¬ 
sion,  it  was  shown  that  the  increase  of  agricultural  productions  conse¬ 
quent  upon  the  settlement,  under  this  bill,  of  one  million  of  freeholders, 
and  the  consequent  extension  of  our  commerce,  will  add  annually  to  the 
national  revenue  seven  times  the  annual  average  receipts  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  from  the  public  lands  since  the  first  acre  was  sold.  It  was  also 
shown  in  the  course  of  the  discussion  of  this  measure,  that  it  would  be 
the  best  policy  towards  the  twelve  States  which  have  public  lands  within 
their  limits,  by  converting  them  into  private  propert}7 — subjecting  them 
to  taxation — and  thus  securing  from  them  a  legitimate  contribution  to 
the  burdens  of  State  government. 

But  the  distribution  of  the  public  lands  which  the  measure  proposes, 
strikes  me  as  in  the  highest  degree  equitable  towards  the  old  States, 
for  by  it  we  provide  for  all  the  States  exactly  in  proportion  tothenum- 


13 


ber  of  the  neecty  and  enterprising  within  their  limits.  As  this  popula¬ 
tion  is  the  most  numerous  in  the  old  States,  they  are,  in  this  point  of 
view,  the  greatest  participators  in  its  bounty  ;  and  is  it  any  objection  to 
this  view  that  the  immediate  beneficiaries  of  the  measures  should  be 
that  large — yet  in  many  respects  meritorious — class  of  our  feliow-citizens 
who  are  borne  down  by  the  ever-increasing  distance  between  wealth 
and  poverty  in  our  old  communities'? — a  class  who,  without  much  hope 
of  elevating  their  condition,  struggle  helplessly  and  hopelessly  there  ; 
and  who,  though  numerous  in  all  the  States,  stand  in  special  need  of 
the  liberal  aid  of  a  paternal  government  in  those  crowded  communi¬ 
ties  where  population  presses  upon  subsistence. 

Is  this  objected  to  as  partial  and  clas£  legislation  ?  And  have  we 
had  none  such  hitherto  ?  Has  there  evei  been  a  measure  adopted  by 
Congress,  by  which  money  was  to  be  distributed  among  the  commu¬ 
nity — be  it  for  internal  improvements,  for  erecting  light-houses,  coast 
defences,  or  public  structures — that  it  did  not  inure  to  your  proprietors, 
your  contractors,  and  men  of  substance— ho  those  who  had  something — 
and  not,  as  the  benefits  proposed  by  this  bill,  to  those  chiefly  who  have 
nothin"?  We  all  know  how  much  has  lieen  done  bv  direct  legislation 
for  the  benefit  of  capital.  For  whom  directly,  but  to  capitalists,  do 
your  innumerable  corporations  and  your  protective  tariffs  yield  their 
benefits?  True,  these  benefits  may  gc  indirectly  to  labor.  Let  us 
grant  that  it  is  so ;  still,  where  will  you  ind  a  single  enactment  for  the 
benefit  of  labor  directly,  and  especially  of  that  class  whose  whole  capi¬ 
tal  is  labor  ? 

In  close  connexion  with  the  topic  of  benefiting  the  land  States,  I  will 
merely  refer  to  the  policy  which  has  beek  illustrated  with  such  ability 
and  success  during  the  last  two  sessions  of  Congress  in  approval  of 
railroad  grants — the  manifest  tendency  of  such  grants  to  fulfil  the  object 
of  the  whole  land  policy  of  the  government — namely,  the  settlement  of 
the  public  domain,  and  its  erection  into  States  ;  and  I  can  assert,  with 
confidence,  that  not  an  argument  was  urtecl  in  behalf  of  those  measures 
which  does  not  apply  with  triple  force  tc  the  bill  under  consideration. 

Reasons  scarcely  less  forcible  than  any  we  have  presented,  in  favor 
of  this  change  proposed  in  our  land  policy,  may  be  derived  from  a  con¬ 
sideration  of  some  features  of  the  present  system.  Among  these,  it  has 
been  shrewdly  questioned  whether  the  benefits  of  the  policy  of  pre¬ 
emptions,  under  existing  laws,  are  not  more  for  the  speculator  than  the 
settler ;  in  other  words,  to  favor  the  capitalist  at  the  expense  of  the  man 
of  small  means.  The  latter  first  settler  upon  his  tract,  and  bestows 
his  labor  with  energy  and  skill  in  reducing  it  under  cultivation;  and 
after  a  series  of  trials,  incident  to  a  frontier  settlement,  he  fails  for  the 
want  of  means  to  pay  the  government  for  the  title,  loses  his  twelve 
months’  privilege  of  purchase,  and  is  compelled  to  linger  out  a  servile 
existence  as  a  tenant,  or  pitch  his  tent  still  further  West,  in  a  feeble 
struggle  for  a  home.  What,  again,  is  the  operation  of  the  public  sales? 
Are  they  the  media  of  transferring  the  lands  to  actual  settlers  and  cul¬ 
tivators  ?  On  the  contrary,  is  it  not  notoriously  the  fact,  that  the  lands, 
on  such  occasions,  pass  chiefly  into  the  hands  of  capitalists,  who  hold 
them  for  an  advance  in  price  from  the  cultivator,  who  at  length  must 
have  them  for  tillage?  Is  there  not  crying  injustice  in  this;  and  is 


14 

there  no  obligation  resting  upon  us,  as  legislators,  to  strike  from  our 
policy  a  stigma  so  opprobrious  ? 

Not  less  objectionable  is  the  working  of  the  bounty  land  laws.  Par¬ 
tial  and  defective  as  these  provisions  must  be  admitted  to  be  in  their 
character,  they  are  equally  so  in  their  practical  application — either  the 
bounty  itself  to  expire  within  a  certain  time,  or  upon  certain  contingen¬ 
cies,  or  the  individuals  who  are  to  be  its  recipients  designated  with 
little  regard  to  equity.  The  rules  and  regulations  which  the  Depart¬ 
ment  of  the  Interior,  as  the  custodian  of  the  public  property,  has  felt 
itself  bound  to  adopt,  operate,  in  many  cases,  with  unmitigated  hard¬ 
ship.  I  am  informed,  that  of  the  applications  for  the  benefit  of  these 
laws  a  large  proportion  have  either  been  rejected  altogether,  or  remain 
suspended  for  want  of  evidence  to  bring  them  within  the  several  acts. 
Doubtless  many  fraudulent  attempts  have  been  made  in  this  way  to  get 
possession  of  the  public  territory  ;  but  how  many  cases  have  failed  of 
allowance  for  want  of  proof  of  one  or  two  days’  service  more  than  the 
Auditor  gives  from  the  rolls,  or  of  a  few  days’  travel?  Then,  again, 
how  many  kinds  of  service,  just  as  meritorious  as  any  included  in  the 
law  of  September  28,  1850,  of  March,  1852,  or  any  of  the  previous 
acts,  have  been  omitted  to  be  provided  for? — veteran  frontiersmen, 
who  fought  with  St.  Clffir  and  Wayne ;  volunteers  who  have  done  coast 
duty,  and  minute  men — those  whose  service  was  divided  between  the 
sea  and  the  shore — those  who  were  engaged  in  the  suppression  of  Burr’s 
conspiracy,  in  the  French  disturbances  prior  to  1800,  and  the  flotilla 
men  in  the  war  of  1812.  I  do  not  pretend  that  I  give  a  complete  enu¬ 
meration,  but  it  is  sufficient  to  show  the  limited  and  unequal  character 
of  the  present  provison.  It  is  true  the  Indian  warriors  of  1793-’4  are 
allowed  to  prove  services,  but  in  most  cases  this  provision  is  a  mock¬ 
ery,  and  merely  nugatory,  and  the  aged  patriots  who  defended  the 
Northwest,  as  well  as  the  “dark  and  bloody  ground,”  long  standing  upon 
the  threshold  of  the  grave,  drop  away  one  by  one,  uncheered  by  any 
return  for  their  sacrifices  and  services  by  a  grateful  country. 

These,  sir,  are  great  hardships.  The  working  of  these  laws  must 
be  allowed  to  be  very  partial  and  unjust ;  and  I  believe  that  the  mea¬ 
sure  which  is  now  proposed  is  the  only  one  which  will  fully  embrace 
all  cases  intended  to  be  provided  for  by  these  acts — that  it  will  effect¬ 
ually  cure  the  difficulty,  and  silence  complaint  throughout  the  land. 
In  addition  to  all  we  have  urged  in  behalf  of  this  measure,  I  would  also 
allude,  though  only  in  passing,  to  the  consideration,  that  the  foundation 
of  the  most  extensive  and  available  civilization  is  the  cultivation  of  the 
soil.  Nothing  else  can  enable  a  nation  to  subsist  so  large  a  number. 
The  most  populous  empire  upon  the  face  of  the  globe,  it  is  well  known, 
and  which  supports  one  third  of  the  human  race — I  mean  the  empire 
of  China — is  that  in  which  the  culture  of  the  soil  is  the  most  extensive, 
And  let  us  not  forget  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  greatest  people  of  an¬ 
tiquity — I  mean  the  Romans — it  was  the  only  pursuit  worthy  of  a  free¬ 
man.  An  opinion,  this,  which  was  illustrated  in  the  lives  of  Cincin- 
natus,  Dentatus,  and  Fabricius. 

In  behalf  of  this  measure,  other  arguments  of  force,  no  way  inferior, 
rise  to  our  reflections.  It  was  most  aptly  said,  by  Sir  William  Black- 
stone,  of  the  common  law — which  is  the  perfection  of  reason — that  it 


15 


resembles  the  human  skin,  fitting  alike  the  new-born  infant  and  the  full- 
grown  man.  Something  in  the  nature  of  the  common  law  as  applied 
to  government  is  the  spirit  and  policy  of  our  republican  system ; 
and  as  this  system  is  itself  an  experiment,  successful  so  far,  as  it  was 
original  and  bold,  yet  still  an  experiment,  it  should  be  administered 
with  a  policy  in  harmony  with  its  origin. 

The  policy  of  territorial  grants  to  individuals,  with  a  view  to  settle¬ 
ment  and  cultivation,  is  by  no  means  first  announced  in  the  measure 
before  us.  Such  grants  have,  in  fact,  been  almost  coeval  with  the  dis¬ 
covery  of  America,  and  have  been  made  upon  a  scale  of  magnitude,, 
and  with  an  absoluteness  of  control  to  the  grantee,  which,  from  sover¬ 
eigns  of  three  centuries  ago,  may  well  challenge  our  admiration.  It 
was  in  1497 — only  five  years  after  the  k$el  of  Columbus’s  little  vessel 
first  grated  upon  the  shores  of  the  Bahamas — that  Henry  VII  granted 
to  John  Cabot  a  patent  for  territory  containing,  as  the  historian  says, 
“the  worst  features  of  colonial  monopoly  and  commercial  restrictions.” 
In  1512,  to  Ponce  de  Leon,  the  companion  of  Columbus  in  his  second 
voyage,  and  the  discoverer  of  Florida,  was  granted,  by  Charles  V,  the 
government  of  that  country,  “with  the  onerous  condition  that  he  should 
colonize  the  country  which  he  was  appointed  to  rule.”  Similar  grants 
were  afterwards  made  by  the  French  an[l  Spanish  sovereigns,  and  by 
almost  every  monarch  of  England  down  to  the  time  of  the  revolution 
of  1688.  The  names  of  Fernando  de  S<j>to,  De  Monts,  Sir  Humphrey 
Gilbert,  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  Sir  George  Calvert,  Endicott,  \\  inthrop, 
and  others  of  the  Plymouth  company,  Six  Ferdinand  Gorges,  and  Cap¬ 
tain  Smith,  in  connexion  with  these  grants,  recur  to  our  memories  with 
something  of  chivalric  interest.  * 

But  if  an}^  force  is  supposed  to  exist  in  example,  it  will  be  found 
that  the  practice  of  governments  upon  yhich  we  are  accustomed  to 
look  down  as  inferior,  has  been  upon  principles  far  more  liberal  than 
our  own.  The  lands  of  Canada  have  kng  been  offered  as  a  free  gift 
to  all  who  choose  to  occupy  them.  So  it  was  in  Mexico,  until  she  lost 
Texas.  So  it  was,  and  perhaps  still  is,  m  the  West  Indies,  and  in  all 
the  Spanish  republics  of  the  Western  Continent ;  and,  with  strange 
inconsistency,  we  behold  the  nation  which  boasts  the  most  enlightened 


government  under  the  sun,  the  only  one, 
del  Fuego,  which  refuses  a  free  home  to 

But  equal  liberality,  in  this  particula 
potic  Asia.  It  was  the  King  of  Persia 
at  London,  issued,  some  thirty  years  agq, 
who  should  emigrate  to  Persia  gratuitous  grants  of  land,  for  the  declared 
purpose  of  improving  his  country. 

Time  forbids  me,  at  present,  from  examining  these  grants  in  detail, 
but  those  of  principal  importance  will  form  a  portion  of  my  printed 
remarks;*  and  it  will  be  found,  on  tracing  them  with  particularity,  that 


from  Hudson’s  Bay  to  Terra 
the  settler. 

,  was  exhibited  even  in  des- 
\vho,  through  his  ambassador 
,  a  proclamation  offering  to  all 


*  Abstract  of  colonial  grants. 

1497.  Henry  VII  granted  to  John  Cabot,  a  Bristol  merchant,  (from  Venice,)  a  patent  for 
territory,  “  containing  the  worst  features  of  colonial  monopoly  and  commercial  restriction. 

1498.  A  new  patent  granted  by  Henry  to  John  Cabot  and  his  son  Sebastian,  a  native  oa 


Bristol. 


16 


the  settlement  of  the  country  is  the  leading  idea  in  all.  So  this  were  but 
likely  to  be  accomplished,  powers  and  privileges  the  most  arbitrary 
and  unlimited  were  freely  conferred  upon  the  favored  object  of  the 
royal  bounty. 


1512.  To  Ponce  de  Leon,  the  companion  of  Columbus  in  his  second  voyage,  and  the  dis¬ 
coverer  of  Florida,  the  government  of  that  country,  “  with  the  onerous  condition  that  he  should, 
colonize  the  country  which  he  was  appointed  to  ride." 

1528.  To  Pamphilo  de  Narvaez,  Florida,  as  far  west  as  the  river  of  Palms. 

1538.  To  Fernando  de  Soto,  by  Charles  V,  “  the  government  of  the  isle  of  Cuba,  with  abso¬ 
lute  power  over  the  immense  territory  to  which  the  name  of  Florida  was  still  vaguely 
applied.” 

1579.  Sir  Humphrey  Gilbert  obtained  from  Queen  Elizabeth  a  patent,  “  conferring  on  him¬ 
self  or  his  assigns  the  soil  which  he  might  discover,  and  the  sole  jurisdiction,  both  civil  and 
criminal,  of  the  territory  within  two  hundred  leagues  of  the  settlement  to  be  formed.” 

1583.  Sir  Walter  Ealeigh  received  t  patent  almost  in  the  same  terms  as  his  step-brother, 
Gilbert. 

1600.  “  A  monopoly  of  the  fur  trade,  with  an  ample  patent,  was  obtained  in  1600  by  Chauvin 
and  Pontgrave,  a  merchant  of  St.  Malo,”  from  Henry  IV. 

1604.  The  sovereignty  of  Acadia  and  its  confines,  from  the  40th  to  the  46th  degree  of 
latitude — that  is,  from  Philadelphia  to  beyond  Montreal,  with  a  patent  of  ample  extent — was 
issued  by  Henry  IV,  exclusively  to  the  able,  patriotic,  and  honest  De  Monts.  He  had  “  a 
still  wider  monopoly  of  the  fur  trade,  :he  exclusive  control  of  the  soil,  government,  and  trade, 
and  freedom  of  religion  for  Huguenot  emigrants.” 

1606.  The  grant  by  James  I  to  a  company  of  noblemen,  gentlemen,  and  merchants  of  Lon¬ 
don,  of  whom  the  prominent  names  were  Chief  Justice  Popham,  Sir  Ferdinand  Gorges,  and 
Sir  Eichard  Hakluyt.  This  company  had  an  exclusive  right  to  occupy  the  region  from  34°  to 
38°  of  north  latitude,  or  from  Cape  Fear  to  the  southern  limit  of  Maryland. 

At  the  same  time,  to  another  company  of  west-of-England  men,  consisting  of  knights,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  and  merchants.  Of  these  the  leading  spirits  were  Sir  Bartholomew  Gosnold,  Edward 
Maria  Wingfield,  and  the  renowned  Ctptaiu  Smith.  The  right  of  this  company  was  equally 
exclusive  to  the  territory  between  41°  and  45°.  The  historian  remarks  that  this  was  the  first 
written  charter  of  a  permanent  American  colony. 

1620.  The  patent  issued  by  King  James  to  forty  of  his  subjects,  conferring  on  the  patentees 
in  absolute  property,  with  unlimited  jurisdiction,  the  sole  powers  of  legislation,  &c.,  and  ex¬ 
tending  “  in  breadth  from  the  40th  to  the  48th  degree  of  north  latitude,  and  in  length  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific — that  is,  nearly  all  the  inhabited  British  possessions  to  the  north 
of  the  United  States;  all  New  England,  New  York,  half  of  New  Jersey,  very  nearly  all  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  the  whole  of  the  country  to  the  west  of  these  States — comprising,  and  at 
the  time  believed  to  comprise,  much  more  than  a  million  of  square  miles,  and  capable  of  sus¬ 
taining  more  than  two  hundred  millions  of  inhab  itants ,  were,  by  a  single  signature  of  King  James, 
given  away  to  a  corporation  within  the  realm  composed  of  but  forty  individuals .” 

“  This  patent  to  the  Plymouth  company,  in  the  American  annals,  aud  even  in  the  history  of 
the  world,  has  but  one  parallel.  The  grant  was  absolute  and  exclusive:  it  conceded  the  land 
and  islands,  the  rivers  and  the  harbors,  the  mines  and  fisheries.” 

1621.  John  Mason  obtained  from  the  council  of  Plymouth  a  grant  of  lands  between  Salem 
river  and  the  furthest  head  of  the  Merrimac 

1622.  Sir  Ferdinand  Gorges  and  Mason  took  a  patent  for  Laconia,  the  whole  country  be¬ 
tween  the  sea,  the  St.  Lawrence,  the  Merrimac,  and  the  Kennebec. 

1629.  The  royal  charter  to  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Company,  confirming  to  them  the  country 
“from  three  miles  south  of  the  river  Charles  and  the  Massachusetts  Bay,  to  three  miles  north 
of  the  river  Merrimac.” 

1621,  (about.)  The  Dutch  West  India  Company,  incorporated  by  the  States  General,  aud 
invested  with  the  exclusive  privilege  to  traffic  and  plant  colonies  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  from 
the  Tropic  of  Cancer  to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope ;  “  on  the  coast  of  America,  from  the  Straits 
of  Magellan  to  the  remotest  north.”  They  had  absolute  power  over  such  countries  as  they 
might  conquer  and  colonize,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  States  General.  The  result  of 
this  grant  was  the  settlement  in  the  United  States  of  the  New  Netherlands — a  term  which 
designated  the  country  from  the  southern  shore  of  Delaware  Bay  to  New  Holland  or  Cape 
Cod.  This  is  the  era  of  the  permanent  settlement  of  New  York,  or.  as  at  first  called,  New 
Amsterdam. 

1632.  The  grant  of  the  country  between  the  fortieth  parallel  of  latitude,  the  meridian  of  the 
western  source  of  the  Potomac,  that  river  to  its  mouth,  and  the  Atlantic  ocean,  to  8ir  George 
Calvert,  (Lord  Baltimore.)  “ This  territory  was  given  to  Lord  Baltimore,  his  heirs  and  as¬ 
signs,  as  to  its  absolute  lord  and  proprietary,  to  be  holden  by  the  tenure  of  fealty  only” — a 


17 


Now,  the  important  practical  conclusion  suggested  by  a  reference  to 
these  grants  is  most  clearly  and  positively  in  favor  of  the  policy  of  this 
bill.  Can  it  be  said  that  those  chartered  grants,  whose  recipients  were 
made  the  repositaries  of  such  enormous  and  irresponsible  powers,  have 
failed  of  their  object?  Is  it  not  rather  to  them — made,  as  they  often 
were,  at  the  caprice  of  the  monarch,  and  burdened  with  imperfections, 
and  in  spite  of  the  sometimes  arbitrary  and  oppressive  character  of 
the  proprietaries — that  we  trace  that  national  and  individual  prosperity 
of  which  we  have  everywhere  such  positive  indications  to-day,  and 
which  renders  us  the  envy  of  an  admiring  world?  If,  then,  the  abso¬ 
lute  control,  with  unimportant  reservations,  over  boundless  territories, 
may  be  granted  to  one  or  a  few  subjects,  it  may  well  be  asked,  shall  a 
republic  be  less  liberal  towards  its  citizens  by  denying  a  few  acres  to 
individual  enterprise?  Must,  then,  a  single  individual,  with  a  kingly 
charter,  be  regarded  as  a  better  almoner  of  the  public  lands  than  a 
government  springing  from  and  administered  for  the  people?  Or  is 
the  tenant  who  holds  of  a  lordly  proprietor  more  likely  to  bring  under 
prosperous  culture  his  qualified  estate,  than  the  absolute  owner  and 
settler  his  little  domain?  A  policy  which  has  been  productive  of  such 
vast  results  in  our  colonial  history,  and  which  we  have  shown  so  well 


colony  established  on  such  principles  of  moderation  al  soon  obtained  for  it  the  most  unprece¬ 
dented  success. 

1633,  (about.)  The  grant  of  the  valley  of  the  Connecticut  to  the  Earl  of  Warwick  as  pro¬ 
prietary,  subsequently  assigned  by  him  to  Lords  Say  and  Seal,  Lord  Brooke,  John  Hampden, 
and  others. 

The  grant  of  the  Province  of  Carolina,  extending  from  the  36th  degree  of  north  latitude 
to  the  river  San  Matheo,  to  Lord  Clarendon  and  others.  These  proprietaries,  in  contempt 
of  the  claims  of  Spain  and  Virginia,  asserted  their  rigit  to  the  territory  thus  indicated. 

1639.  Gorges  obtained,  by  royal  charter,  the  title  of  lord  proprietary  of  the  territory  since 
known  as  the  State  of  Maine. 

1665.  Lord  Clarendon  and  others  obtained  a  new  charter  for  Carolina,  which  granted  them 
all  the  lands  lying  between  29°  and  36°  36'  north  latitude — a  territory  extending  seven  and  a 
half  degrees  from  north  to  south,  and  more  than  forty  degrees  from  east  to  west — comprising 
all  the  territory  of  North  and  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Tennessee,  Alabama,  Mississippi, 
Louisiana,  Arkansas,  much  of  Florida  and  Missouri,  marly  all  of  Texas,  and  a  large  portion  of 
Mexico. 

1681.  The  patent  for  the  territory  of  Pennsylvania 
solute  proprietary,  by  King  James  II. 


vas  confirmed  to  William  Penn,  as  ab- 


Extract  from  a  decree  of  the  Repufilic  of  Colombia,  dated  June,  1823. 

“  The  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  united  in  Congress, 
considering — 

“  1.  That  a  population  numerous  and  proportionate  to  the  territory  of  a  State,  is  the  basis 
of  its  property  and  true  greatness ; 

“  2.  That  the  fertility  of  the  soil,  the  salubrity  of  the  climate,  the  extensive  unappropriated 
lands,  and  the  free  institutions  of  the  republic,  permic  and  require  a  numerous  emigration  of 
useful  and  laboring  strangers,  who,  by  improving  thejr  own  fortunes,  may  augment  the  reve¬ 
nues  of  the  nation ;  have  decreed — 

“  That  foreigners  emigrating  to  Colombia  shall  receive  gratuitous  donations  of  land,  in  par¬ 
cels  of  two  hundred  fanegas  [about  four  hundred  acres]  to  each  family/’ 


Proclamation  of  t/te  King  of  Persia,  through  his  ambassador,  dated  London,  July  8,  1823. 

“  Mirza  Mahomed  Saul,  Ambassador  to  England,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  Abbas 
Mirza,  King  of  Persia,  offers  to  those  who  shall  emigrate  to  Persia,  gratuitous  grants  of  land, 
good  for  the  production  of  wheat,  barley,  rice,  cotton,  and  fruits,  free  from  taxes  and  contri¬ 
butions  of  any  kind,  and  with  the  free  enjoyment  of  their  religion;  the  King's  object  being  to 
improve  his  country.” 

2 


18 

adapted  to  our  condition  and  circumstances,  can  involve  no  sacrifice  to 
the  government. 

The  public  domain,  instead  of  being  a  blessing  to  the  government, 
is  in  reality  an  incumbrance  to  it.  It  is  even  now  the  apple  of  discord, 
influencing,  and  in  a  measure  controlling,  the  legislation  of  Congress. 
Schemes  are  being  constantly  projected  to  get  possession  of,  and  to 
absorb  the  public  territory ;  while  the  ingenuity  and  combination  em¬ 
ployed  with  the  same  object,  in  regard  to  the  public  revenue,  are 
beyond  the  limits  of  calculation.  The  application  now  before  Con¬ 
gress  to  confer  upon  the  participants  in  the  war  of  1812,  the  Mexican 
war,  and  the  various  wars  since  1790,  without  regard  to  length  or  char¬ 
acter  of  service,  160  acres  of  land,  would  require,  as  appears  from  a 
statement  which  I  recently  obtained  from  the  Department  of  the  Inte¬ 
rior,  an  additional  issue  of  574,811  warrants,  and  the  quantity  of  land 
necessary  to  satisfy  them  would  be  83,209,760  acres — an  area  equal  to 
that  of  the  six  New  England  States,  together  with  that  of  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  and  Maryland. 

An  economical  government  can  never  be  found  with  an  overflowing 
treasury.  They  are  inconsistent,  both  in  element  and  practice.  Strong 
governments — monarchical  governments — rely  upon  bayonets  as  well 
as  concentrated  political  power,  and  treasures  wrung  from  the  industry 
of  the  patient  but  oppressed  massed.  Republics  rest  upon  the  intelli¬ 
gence  and  purity  of  public  opinion.  By  their  theory  no  more  money 
should  be  raised  by  taxation  than  is  necessary  for  the  adequate  but 
economical  administration  of  the  government.  Then  wherefore  col¬ 
lect  revenue  from  the  needy  to  distribute  among  the  opulent  ? 

Gen.  Jackson,  in  his  annual  message  to  Congress  in  1832,  stated: 

“  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  speedy  settlement  of  these  lands  constitute  the  true  inter¬ 
ests  of  the  republic.  The  wealth  and  strength  of  a  country  are  its  population  ;  and  the  best 
part  of  the  population  are  the  cultivators  of  the  soil.  Independent  farmers  are  everywhere 
the  basis  of  society,  and  true  friends  of  liberty.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  our  true  policy,  that 
the  public  lands  shall  cease  as  soon  as  practicable  to  be  a  source  of  revenue.” 

A  similar  policy  to*that  which  regulates  our  public  domain  was  that 
which  long  existed  in  regard  to  the  crown  lands  of  Great  Britain,  and 
which  one  of  the  wisest  of  British  statesmen  was  the  means  of  ex¬ 
ploding.  Edmund  Burke,  in  speaking  before  the  British  Parliament 
m  support  of  his  bill  for  the  alienation  of  those  lands,  declared : 

•‘It  is  thus  I  would  dispose  of  the  unprofitable  landed  estates  of  the  crown — throw 
them  into  the  mass  of  private  property — by  which  they  will  come,  through  the  course  of  circu¬ 
lation,  and  through  the  political  secretions ,  into  well-regulated  revenue.” 

I  will  further  remark  that,  by  the  late  message  of  General  Pierce,  it 
appears  that,  at  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1852, 
there  remained  a  balance  in  the  treasury  of  $14,632,136,  and  that  “the 
public  revenue  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1853,  amounted  to 
$61,337,574,  while  the  public  expenditures  for  the  same  period,  exclu¬ 
sive  of  payments  on  account  of  the  public  debt,  amounted  to  $43,554,262 ; 
leaving  a  balance  of  $32,425,447  of  receipts  over  expenditures.” 

It  is  evident,  from  this  exhibit,  that  no  moment  more  favorable  for 
the  introduction  of  the  policy  suggested  by  General  Jackson  can  be 
expected  to  occur  than  the  present.  During  the  eight  years  of  his  ad¬ 
ministration,  the  aggregate  expenditures,  exclusive  of  the  amount  paid 
on  the  public  debt,  was  but  $145,792,767  30,  being  an  average  of 


19 


$18,224,095  91  per  year.  The  receipts  for  the  same  period,  from  all 
sources,  amounted  to  $252,061,370  85  ;  while  the  aggregate  expendi¬ 
tures  during  the  four  years’  administration  of  General  Taylor  and  Mr. 
Fillmore,  exclusive  of  the  amount  paid  on  the  public  debt,  reached  the 
enormous  sum  of  $165,150,156  95,  being  an  average  of  $41,287,539  23 
per  year.  The  population  of  the  United  States,  at  the  census  taken 
during  the  administration  of  General  Jackson,  was  12,866,020,  while 
that  taken  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Fillmore  was  23,191,876. 
Mark  the  disparity  in  expenditure,  as  compared  with  the  increase  of 
population. 

But  a  greater  and  more  important  point  of  view,  than  any  from  which 
we  have  yet  regarded  the  proposition  of  freehold  homes,  is  that  which 
contemplates  them  as  the  most  effectual  safeguards  against  disunion . 
I  know,  sir,  we  are  in  the  habit  of  passing  over  this  topic  with  a  light¬ 
ness  which  indicates  how  little  we  anticipate  such  a  result  or  dread  its 
dangers.  But  I  prefer,  sir,  to  respect  the  wisdom  of  the  founders  of 
the  republic,  who  looked  with  no  small  apprehension  to  dangers  from 
“  anarchy  among  the  members.”  Without  a  doubt,  if  ever  this  mag¬ 
nificent  temple  of  free  government  is  destined  to  be  numbered  among 
the  faded  glories  of  the  past,  it  will  be  found,  as  in  the  case  of  the  free 
States  of  old,  that  the  dismemberment  of  the  empire  was  the  first  grand 
stride  towards  its  extinction  in  the  night  of  ruin.  I  prefer  to  consider 
it  as  the  part  of  true  statesmanship,  in  all  great  measures  of  policy,  to 
look  possible,  nay,  even  probable,  dangers  in  the  face.  There  is  no 
change  in  human  motives  or  character.  Temptations  to  political  ex¬ 
cesses,  to  attempts  mo2'e  or  less  direct  upon  the  sovereignty  of  the  States, 
exist  the  same  now  as  in  the  days  of  Sylla,  of  Marius,  and  the  Caesars. 
The  race  of  such  aspirants,  nor  yet  of  the  Catalines  and  Cethegi,  is 
by  no  means  extinct. 

It  is  true  there  is  nothing  in  our  present  condition  to  excite  the  slight¬ 
est  alarm.  The  eye  may  sweep  the  political  horizon  without  discovering 
so  much  as  the  little  cloud — no  larger  thqn  the  prophet’s  hand — signifi¬ 
cant  of  approaching  danger.  But  what  is  the  present  in  the  existence 
of  a  nation?  It  is  even  as  a  day  or  a  month  in  the  life  of  man.  And 
in  seeking  for  the  country  and  the  institutions  of  our  affections,  that  per¬ 
petuity  which  is  the  object  of  our  hopes,  it  is  well  to  look  ahead.  Let 
us  carry  our  vision  forward  only  to  the  close  of  the  next  half  century, 
when,  in  the  impressive  language  of  President  Pierce,  in  his  thessage, 
“thousands  of  persons  who  have  already  arrived  at  maturity,  and  are 
now  exercising  the  rights  of  freemen,  will  close  their  eyes  on  the  spec¬ 
tacle  of  more  than  one  hundred  millions  t>f  population,  embraced  within 
the  majestic  proportions  of  the  American  Union.”  Can  we  say,  with 
confidence,  that  there  will  be  no  danger  then  from  the  ambition,  preju¬ 
dices,  and  conflicting  interests  which  such  a  population  is  sure  to  en¬ 
gender,  or  in  the  ages  which  are  to  unfold  themselves  after  ?  On  the 
contrary,  is  it  not  the  part  of  wisdom,  while  the  vessel  is  still  in  the 
harbor,  to  fit  her  for  the  dangerous  navigation  of  boisterous  seas?  While 
she  is  flying  buoyantly  before  the  genial  breeze,  and  beneath  beaming 
skies,  is  it  not  true  seamanship  to  put  her  in  trim  to  ride  out  the  storm 
which  she  is  sure  to  encounter? 

Nor  do  we  find  less  source  of  alarm  when  we  advert  to  the  circum- 


20 


itances  which  are  apt  to  be  prolific  of  such  adventurers.  So  long  as 
he  hardy  and  simple  virtues  of  the  early  fathers  endured,  the  integrity 
>f  the  Roman  Commonwealth  was  safe.  It  was  only  when,  with  an 
overcrowded  population,  with  the  progress  of  conquest  luxury  poured 
in  with  its  corrupting  influences,  that  laxity  of  principle  seized  upon  all 
ranks  of  public  men,  and  that  the  State  was  regarded  as  the  lawful 
prey  of  intrigue  and  audacity.  Of  course  the  holders  of  such  projects 
never  avow  them  openly  ;  but  when  did  corrupt  ambition  ever  lack  a 
pretext  ?  And  though  not  forgetting  in  the  parallel  the  notice  of  those 
superior  influences  which  Christianity  imparts  alike  to  the  community 
and  its  public  representatives,  we  cannot  forget  the  usurpations  of  Crom¬ 
well,  made  in  the  name  of  religion  itself. 

And  now,  sir,  while  professing  myself,  as  I  have  done,  a  friend  of 
progress  in  its  best  sense,  and  believing  in  the  high  destiny  of  our  race 
as  regards  extension  of  territory  and  position  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth — of  which  we  are  in  the  habit  of  boasting  rather  more  than  good 
taste  would  justify — still,  in  view  of  our  matchless  progress  in  com¬ 
mercial  prosperity,  of  the  colossal  strides  we  are  making  in  wealth 
and  luxury,  with  vice  and  corruption  thronging  in  their  train — in  view, 

I  say,  of  these  significant  facts  in  our  condition,  it  strikes  me  as  the 
first  duty  of  statesmanship  to  foster  and  diffuse  all  those  checks  and 
influences  which  are  calculated  to  counteract  the  corrupting  tendencies 
of  the  age,  and  to  guard  against  those  special  dangers  to  which,  from 
our  form  of  government  as  a  confederacy  of  States,  we  are  peculiarly 
exposed. 

No  better  corrective,  in  my  judgment,  of  the  tendencies  to  which, 
from  our  very  excess  of  prosperity,  we  are  prone ;  and  no  firmer  bar¬ 
rier  to  the  assaults  of  disunion  can  be  found,  than  that  which  may  be 
procured  by  increasing  the  number  of  freehold  homes.  We  thus  create 
an  extensive  interest,  which,  owing  its  existence  to  the  general  govern¬ 
ment,  will,  from  the  principle  of  self-preservation,  as  well  as  of  grati¬ 
tude,  natural  to  uncorrupted  hearts,  desire  to  preserve  in  its  integrity, 
as  well  as  purity  and  simplicity,  that  united  sovereignty  of  whose  signal 
munificence  they  have  been  made  the  recipients. 

Sir,  it  is  the  property  of  rural  pursuits,  while  giving  vigor  and  hard¬ 
iness  to  the  body,  to  impart  a  like  robustness  to  the  mental  and  moral 
character.  Honesty,  simplicity  of  habits,  industry,  frugality,  and  pa¬ 
tience,  are  the  noble  and  manly  virtues  of  the  cultivator  of  the  soil. 
These  it  is  which  will  serve  to  temper  the  luxurious  excesses  of  com¬ 
mercial  prosperity,  and  which  will  stand  unshaken  amid  the  wares  of 
faction. 

But  what,  after  all,  is  the  great  bonus  bestowed  by  this  measure, 
and  which  is  to  impoverish  the  nation  ?  It  has  been  already  shown, 


i 


21 


that  of  the  thirteen  hundred  and  sixty  millions  of  acres*  which  the  gov¬ 
ernment  owns,  not  more  than  one  hundred  and  sixty  millions  would 
for  several  years  come  under  the  operation  of  this  bill.  Why,  sir,  if 
to  this  you  add  fifty  millions,  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  the  Pacific 
railway,  you  have  still  eleven  hundred  and  fifty  millions  for  your 
public  domain — a  territory  fourteen  times  as  large  as  the  united  terri¬ 
tory  of  England,  Wales,  Ireland,  and  Scotland,  and  sufficient  in  extent 
to  make  two  hundred  States  of  the  size  of  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  or 
New  Hampshire 

In  view,  then,  of  the  magnitude  of  this  imperial  possession,  a  large 
portion  of  which,  without  a  change  of  policy,  must  remain  a  wilderness 
for  centuries — of  the  mighty  spirit  of  progress  in  science  and  art  which 
characterizes  the  age,  and  preeminently  distinguishes  this  happy  land 
of  ours ;  of  the  fact  that  all  civilizing  agencies  are  advancing  in  a  geo¬ 
metrical  ratio,  so  that  that  is  done  now  in  a  single  decade  of  years 
which  centuries  before  could  scarcely  accomplish — with  a  view,  too, 
to  settling  our  vacant  territory,  of  converting  it  from  an  uncultivated 
wilderness  to  its  natural  purpose,  and  building  it  up  into  States,  by 
wdiich  the  happiness  of  every  part,  as  well  as  of  the  whole,  is  to  be 
augmented — I  may  be  allowed  to  say,  that  no  disposition  of  those  lands 
would  be  so  wise  as  that  proposed  in  the  bill  under  consideration. 

Sir,  it  is  time  we  approach  this  question  in  a  different  humor  from 
that  of  the  school  logician.  We  must  cease  to  reason  in  a  circle.  We 
must  abandon  old  and  partial  premises,  which  lead  only  to  the  conclu¬ 
sion  that  whatever  is,  is  the  best.  We  must  drop  the  character  of  the 
special  pleader,  and  assume  that  of  the  legislator  and  the  statesman. 
We  must  look  for  new  premises  in  the  altered' condition  of  the  times — in 
the  progressive  spirit  of  the  age — which  lead  to  new  conclusions  of 
faith  in  man’s  capacity,  and  favorable  to  human  improvement. 

Need  I  remind  my  auditors  that  we  live  at  a  period  when  new  agen¬ 
cies  have  been  pressed  into  human  service  in  countless  applications, 
extending,  to  an  incalculable  degree,  our  influence  over  matter  ?  That 
the  steamboat,  the  steamship,  the  electric  telegraph,  and  the  railway — 
the  multitudes  of  discoveries  and  improvements  in  the  arts,  and  the 


*  Stated  and  Territories. 

Area  of  acres  unsold 
and  unappropriated 
of  offered  and  unof- 
ered  lands,  June  30,  ' 
1853. 

- — » - ■ - 

States  and  Territories. 

Area  of  aeres  unsold 
and  unappropriated 
of  offered  and  unof- 
ered  lands,  June  30, 
1853. 

Ohio . 

244, 196. 03 
247,  339.  41 

4, 115, 909.97 
22,722, 801.41 

Town.  _  _ 

22, 773,  i75.  57 
23,  673, 486. 19 
113, 632,436. 00 
85,225,601.41 

Indiana . . 

Wisconsin  _ _ . . .... 

Illinois . 

California _ _ ...... 

Missouri . . . 

Minnesota  Territory... 

Alabama . 

15, 049, 693. 70 

Oregon  Territory . 

206,  349,  333.  00 

Mississippi . 

9,  083,  655.  94 

New  Mexico  Territory. 

127,  383,  040.  00 

Louisiana . 

9,134,143.81 

Utah  Territory . 

113, 589,013.  00 

Michigan . 

16, 142, 293. 48 

Northwest  Territory  .. 

338,  334,  000.  00 

Arkansas . 

15,725,  383.83 

Nebraska  Territory... 

87,488, 000.00 

Florida . 

29, 262, 674. 59 

Indian  Territory . 

Total . 

119,789,  440.  00 

1,360, 070,681.89 

22 


marvellous  perfection  of  machinery — mark  this  as  the  most  inventive 
age  upon  the  records  of  our  race — is  a  remark  which  loses  its  impres¬ 
sive  significance  only  from  the  frequency  with  which  we  are  compelled 
to  utter  it.  Is  it  sought  to  compare  the  works  of  our  times  with  those 
of  antiquity  ’?  Shall  we  place  our  canals,  our  railways,  our  telegraphs — 
crossing  the  land  and  the  water  alike,  sending  its  flash  across  the 
English  channel,  and  all  but  piercing  the  Atlantic;  and  on  this  side  of 
the  water  extending  from  Halifax  to  New  York,  and  from  thence  to  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico — shall  we  place  these,  with  our  suspension  bridges, 
our  tunnels,  and  our  national  monuments,  by  the  side  of  those  vast  but 
unmeaning  works,  the  pyramids,  the  wall  of  China,  and  the  Lake  of 
Moeris  ?  Shall  we  even  compare  them  with  the  great  highways  of  the 
Roman  empire — the  Appian  and  Flaminian  ways'?  Nothing  more  is 
necessary  to  illustrate  the  immeasurable  superiority  of  the  works  of  the 
present  era,  when  compared  with  that  standard  which  is  recognised  as 
the  guide  for  industry — namely,  the  promotion  of  human  happiness — 
than  the  mention  of  these  great  works  in  juxtaposition.  It  is  ail  one  as 
if  we  should  compare  the  Grecian  triremes  or  the  Roman  galleys,  with 
the  complete  and  effective  war  steamer  of  our  da}’,  capable  of  stretch¬ 
ing  a  girdle  of  vapor  around  the  earth  in  a  quarter  of  its  revolution 
around  the  sun,  and  in  less  time  than  either  of  the  former  would  pass 
from  Rome  or  Athens  to  the  ports  of  the  Euxine — all  one  as  if  we  should 
compare  the  clumsiness  and  tardiness  of  their  merchant  ships  with  the 
well-appointed  and  manageable  sailing  craft  of  our  mercantile  marine. 

Sir,  I  was  struck  by  a  remark  made  by  the  attorney  general  of  the 
government  in  a  recent  speech  made  at  Baltimore  or  Newark,  when  ac¬ 
companying,  with  his  brethren  of  the  cabinet,  our  honored  chief  ma¬ 
gistrate  in  his  official  visit  to  New  York.  “  Action,”  said  Mr.  Cushing, 
“is  the  necessity  of  our  age,  and  especiallv  of  the  position,  physical 
and  political,  which  we  hold  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.”  This, 
sir,  is  most  emphatically  true;  and  the  onward  march  of  events  will 
not  permit  us  to  stand  still  if  we  wish  it.  This  appropriate  and  well 
uttered  remark  was  made  in  reference  to  another  great  question  with 
which  the  present  has  a  most  important  connexion.  I  allude  to  the 
great  Pacific  railway.  The  value  of  such  a  highway  to  the  commerce 
of  the  country  and  the  world,  I  am  glad  to  find,  is  thoroughly  appre¬ 
ciated  by  our  people.  Suffer  me  to  glance  a  moment  at  the  great  ends 
which  are  contemplated  by  the  completion  of  that  work.  But,  sir,  I 
must  dissent  entirely  from  the  conclusion  of  the  argument  drawn  by  the 
distinguished  head  of  the  War  Department — from  its  necessity  as  a 
measure  of  defence  to  the  country,  except  in  connexion  with  the  home¬ 
stead  policy,  which  will  carry  along  the  line  of  the  road,  and  into  the 
gorges  of  the  mountain,  a  train  of  emigrants,  of  actual  settlers,  able 
and  willing  to  protect  it  against  hostile  aggression. 

But  I  wish  to  look  a  moment  at  the  great  purpose  which  it  is  des¬ 
tined  to  subserve  in  facilitating  the  commerce  of  the  world.  It  is  by 
such  a  highway,  indeed,  that  the  disjointed  members  of  our  vast  con¬ 
federacy — disjointed  only  by  the  intervention  of  a  vast  expanse  of  des¬ 
olate  forest  and  prairie,  which  separate  our  Atlantic  and  Pacific  re¬ 
gions — are  to  be  brought  into  close  and  easy  proximity ;  that  the  bar¬ 
rier  of  the  Stony  mountains  is  to  be  broken  dowm,  no  longer  to  inter- 


23 


pose,  by  towering  heights  and  inhospitable  snows,  an  obstacle  to  inter¬ 
course  ;  but  the  dweller  by  the  Aroostook,  the  Hudson,  the  Delaware, 
and  the  Potomac,  may  pass  as  readily  and  almost  as  quickly  to  his 
friends  on  the  Sacramento  and  the  San  Joaquin  as  he  can  at  this  time 
to  New  Orleans,  Mobile,  or  Pensacola.  This  alone  will  constitute  it  a 
mighty  and  magnificent  achievement  of  scientific  labor  and  skill.  But 
still  greater  appears  the  magnitude  of  this  enterprise  when  we  reflect 
that  it  is  to  form  the  great  avenue  to  the  -  Oriental  trade,  and  to  make 
our  continent  the  highway  for  the  other  grand  divisions  of  the  world. 
This  work  it  is  which  is  to  make  Sari  Francisco  the  New  York  of  the 
Pacific — soon  to  vie  with  the  queen  of  the  Atlantic,  but  scarcely  to  sur¬ 
pass  her.  From  these  two  points,  as  centers  on  either  side,  the  com¬ 
mercial  streams  will  radiate  and  be  reflected  back  with  increased  in¬ 
tensity;  on  the  one  hand,  from  the  mother  pf  our  American  races,  and 
the  home  of  the  Moor  and  the  African  ;  and  on  the  other,  from  the  cradle 
of  our  first  parents  and  the  furthest  isles  of  the  sea,  abounding  with 
those  rare  and  costly  products  which  nature  has  distributed  with  so 
partial  a  hand,  and  overflowing  with  myriads  of  our  fellow-beings. 
The  value  of  the  commerce  of  which  we  are  thus  to  become  the  most 
favored  recipients  is  no  secret  to  the  world. 

Upon  this  trade  grew  the  greatness  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  as  commer¬ 
cial  cities.  Its  peculiar  commodities  built  up  subsequently  and  in  suc¬ 
cession  the  cities  of  Babylon,  and  Palmyra,,  and  Alexandria,  and  Con¬ 
stantinople,  and  Venice,  and  Genoa,  and  Antwerp,  and  Bruges,  and 
Amsterdam,  and,  at  this  da}r,  contributes  its  richest  streams  to  the  com¬ 
mercial  greatness  of  London,  and  Paris,  and  New  York. 

But,  sir,  the  course  and  enriching  character  of  the  Oriental  commerce 
have  been  traced  with  a  particularity,  (which  I  cannot  imitate  here,)  by 
one  who,  still  in  this  branch  of  the  legislature,  has  grown  gray  in  the 
distinguished  service  of  his  country.  I  refer  to  the  Senator  from  Mis¬ 
souri,  w’hose  enthusiasm  upon  this  subject  does  him  honor,  and  who,  in 
his  speeches  upon  it,  has  illustrated  it  with  a  flood  of  elegant  learning, 
which  he  is  ever  ready  to  pour  over  every  subject  which  he  touches. 

If  we  do  not  immediately  perceive  the  connexion  which  this  project 
has  with  the  measure  chiefly  under  consideration,  we  have  only  to  re¬ 
flect  that  the  commerce  of  any  country  is,  limited  by  the  amount  of 
products  which  it  has  to  give  in  exchange.  Now,  it  is  exactly  the  pro¬ 
ducts  of  agriculture  which  are  called  for  by  the  millions  of  the  Chinese 
and  Japan  Empires — suffering  from  the  evils  of  an  overcrowded  popu¬ 
lation  ;  and  w'hich  the  rapid  means  of  transit  afforded  by  this  road,  in 
connexion  with  the  Pacific  steamer,  reaching  the  East  from  the  W  est, 
will  enable  us  to  furnish  them  with  admirable  promptness,  and  in  the 
greatest  abundance.  In  return,  the  cultivator  of  the  soil  will  receive 
a  full  and  cheap  supply  of  the  now  costly  luxuries  of  China  and  India. 
The  farmer  will  see,  without  alarm  at  the  inroads  of  luxury,  his  wife 
and  daughters  comfortablv  arraved  in  the  silks  and  cashmeres  of  China 
and  Thibet,  and  the  teas  of  the  Celestial  empire  will  greet  him  with  a 
freshness  and  a  delicacy  of  flavor  which  he  will  scarcely  recognise  as 
of  the  same  herb  which,  robbed  of  its  best  properties  by  a  twelve 
months’  voyage,  he  yet  knows  how  to  prize. 

True  it  is  that  the  spirit  of  the  age  is  commercial,  and  that  the  ships 


24 


of  all  civilized  nations  now  meet  in  friendly  rivalry  upon  every  sea. 
The  share  of  trade,  however,  which  will  fall  to  each  nation  is  yet  to 
be  determined  by  the  internal  capacities  and  development  of  each. 
And  allow  me  to  say,  that  the  effect  upon  production  of  the  passage  of 
this  bill  in  connexion  with  that  which  shall  provide  for  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  the  Pacific  railway,  will  be  great  beyond  the  reach  of  prophecy 
to  tell.  What  the  opening  of  a  great  avenue  into  territory  at  that  time 
unsettled  will  effect,  has  already  been  illustrated  on  a  magnificent  scale 
in  the  case  of  New  York.  The  genius  of  D,e  Witt  Clinton  projecting 
the  Erie  canal,  to  unite  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic  and  Lake  Erie,  her 
extensive  and  dreary  solitudes  sprung  at  once  into  a  populous,  empire. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  present  century  New  York  had  a  population 
of  but  fifty  thousand.  That  she  now  approaches  in  magnitude  the  city 
of  Paris,  numbering  more  than  seven  hundred  thousand  souls,  is  to  be 
attributed  mainly  to  the  development  of  her  great  internal  resources, 
consequent  upon  the  completion  of  the  canal;  and  yet  further  since,  by 
those  triple  bands  of  iron  by  which  her  eastern  and  western  extremities 
have  been  bound  together,  and  which  have  invited  the  trade  of  the 
vast  regions  of  the  lakes  and  the  northwest.  Vain,  would  have  been 
her  efforts  to  build  up  a  foreign  trade  without  domestic  products  to 
exchange — without  her  iron,  her  salt,  her  agricultural  products,  and 
those  of  her  factories  and  workshops;  vain,  without  a  numerous  and 
still  growing  people  to  clothe  with  stuffs  from  foreign  looms,  and  to 
supply  with  foreign  luxuries — with  coffees  and  teas,  and  sugars  and 
molasses;  with  wines,  and  brandies  and  spices  ;  with  silks  and  cottons; 
with  cutlery  and  crockery ;  with  laces  and  jewelry ;  with  linens  and 
woollens. 

But  what  are  the  still  extending  lines  of  railway  throughout  the  coun¬ 
try?  What  the  canals,  and  the  rivers  ploughed  by  the  steamboat,  but 
illustrations  of  the  happy  effects  of  such  works  in  opening  up  our  domes¬ 
tic  resoures,  in  calling  into  being  new  and  happy  rural  communities, 
which  react  again  upon  the  size  of  large  cities,  and  altogether  tend  to 
swell  the  tide  of  the  general  prosperity?  Doubtless  the  extent  of  pro¬ 
duction  is  greatly  affected  by  the  presence  or  absence  of  Government 
restrictions  ;  and  it  is  apparent  that  this  trade,  as  between  England  and 
America,  has  been  increased  largely  in  consequence  of  the  repeal  of 
the  corn  laws  and  the  adoption  of  our  revenue  tariff  in  1846,  and  that 
production  has  been  immensely  stimulated  thereby.  Great  as  is  this 
trade  and  production,  however,  it  only  faintty  foreshadows  what  would 
be  the  result  if  the 
were  oifce  adopted. 

The  cultivation  of  the  soil  is  a  natural  pursuit,  and  it  is  a  result  of 
civilization,  and  the  organization  of  Governments,  that  there  must  be 
an  interchange  of  commercial  commodities.  The  Almighty  in  his  bound¬ 
less  beneficence  created  man  after  his  own  image,  filled  him  with  do- 
sires,  endowed  him  with  reason — with  an  intellect  almost  approximat¬ 
ing  to  divinity  itself — and  fully  designed  that  he  should  carry  on  a  so¬ 
cial  and  commercial  intercourse,  coextensive  with  the  planet  he  in¬ 
habits.  For  that  purpose  he  created  this  globe  with  a  variety  of  soil 
and  a  variety  of  climate  ;  and  connected  it  by  rivers,  seas,  lakes,  gulfs, 
and  oceans,  that  there  might  be  a  full  interchange  of  its  varied  corn- 


policy  now  proposed  in  regard  to  the  public  lands 


25 


modities.  He  fully  designed  that  the  products  of  the  valley  of  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi  should  be  exchanged  for  those  of  the  Indus  and  the  Ganges,  as 
well  as  of  the  Thames  and  the  Rhine* 

Commerce,  then,  is  the  ruling  spirit  of  the  age,  and  it  is  a  wise  and 
benignant  spirit.  What  has  so  much  tended  to  break  down  the  preju¬ 
dices  of  nations,  strangers  to  each  other,  as  the  freedom  and  frequency 
of  commercial  intercourse  ?  What  is  so  liberal  as  commerce  in  diffusing 
the  blessings  of  civilization,  in  building  up  cities,  and  in  establishing  and 
fostering  religion?  If  in  any  age  religion  has  been  honored,  science 
and  learning  have  shone  with  a  blaze  of  lustre,  it  has  been  when  the 
commercial  spirit  was  at  its  height.  Was  not  commerce  flourishing  at  its 
acme  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  under  Solomon,  the  wise  king  ?  Did  they 
not  go  hand  in  hand  in  the  Augustan  age  of  the  Roman  Empire  ?  Was 
not  the  same  true  of  the  Eastern  empire  at  Byzantium,  and  among  the 
“  merchant  princes  of  Venice  and  Genoa?”  And  lastly,  is  it  not  pre¬ 
eminently  true  in  this,  the  most  commercial  age  the  world  has  seen, 
that  the  Christian  religion  is  the  most  extended  and  cherished,  and  that 
every  influence  of  knowledge  and  learning  favorable  to  human  happi¬ 
ness,  exists  in  a  degree  never  before  witnessed  ?  Sir,  if  we  are  wise,  we 
shall  have  a  reference  to  this  spirit  in  our  legislation. 

“  Commerce  is  king,”  but  his  throne  at  least  is  supported  by  manu¬ 
factures  and  agriculture — chiefly  the  latter.  Commerce,  it  is  true,  is 
the  glorious  efflorescence,  the  flower  and  fruit  of  the  tree  of  industry 
and  labor,  as  applied  to  the  soil  and  material  products ;  and  if  the  fruit 
be  so  excellent  and  desirable,  how  must  we  judge  of  the  tree?  Let  us 
cultivate  this  tree  with  care.  Let  us  water  its  roots  and  prune  its 
branches,  and  we  shall  rear  a  plant  which  the  axe  of  destiny  shall 
glance  harmlessly  by ;  and  beneath  its  branches  the  oppressed  of  all 
nations  will  find  a  shelter. 

I  have  already  referred  to  the  beneficent  influence  of  commerce  as 
the  handmaid  of  religious  and  moral  improvement.  While  the  passage 
of  this  bill,  by  favoring  commerce,  will  encourage  this  influence,  it  will 
do  so  in  a  still  higher  degree  directly.  Who  that  has  studied  human 
nature  practically  but  will  admit  that,  if  you  wish  to  elevate  the  intel¬ 
lectual  and  moral  condition  of  a  people,  you  should  first  make  them  easy 
in  their  physical  circumstances.  Small,  indeed,  the  success  of  those 
philanthropists  and  Christian  missionaries  who  have  labored  for  human 
improvement,  while  the  people  under  their  charge  consumed  their  whole 
time  in  supplying  their  material  wmnts.  Once  place  it  in  their  power,  by 
regular  and  not  overtasked  industry,  to  procure  for  themselves  the  ne¬ 
cessaries  and  some  of  the  comforts  of  subsistence,  and  then  their  higher 
and  better  natures  at  once  begin  to  unfold.  Then  you  furnish  a  fit  field 
for  the  teacher  of  science,  literature,  and  religion. 

But  however  numerous  and  convincing  the  reasons  in  support  of 
this  measure,  and  however  certain  its  success  in  the  popular  branch  of 
the  national  legislature,  it  is  apprehended  by  some  that  a  fatal  opposi¬ 
tion  awaits  it  in  the  Senate.  I  cannot  say,  sir,  that  I  am  a  sharer  to 
any  great  extent  in  those  apprehensions.  It  is  true  that  in  other  coun¬ 
tries,  and  under  very  different  forms  of  government,  great  measures  of 
popular  reform  have  been  sometimes  delayed  in  their  passage  by  the 
action  of  the  higher  branch  of  the  legislature.  The  reader  of  English 


26 


history  needs  hardly  to  be  reminded  that,  in  its  encroachments  upon 
the  privileges  of  Parliament,  and  upon  the  rights  of  the  subject,  the 
Throne  was  generally  upheld  by  the  House  of  Lords.  It  was  the 
British  House  of  Lords  which,  at  the  Revolution  of  1688,  hesitated 
against  the  clearly  expressed  will  of  the  nation  at  the  bill  of  rights 
and  the  act  of  settlement  by  which  civil  and  religious  liberty  were 
accurately  defined  and  forever  guaranteed,  and  the  descent  of  the 
crown  directed  in  accordance  with  the  national  will.  It  was  the  same 
body  which,  for  fifty  years,  waged  a  relentless  hostility  to  the  passage 
of  the  emancipation  bill,  to  the  reform  bill  in  1832,  and  to  the  repeal 
of  the  corn  laws  in  1846.  It  is  true,  that  in  each  of  those  cases  the 
Lords  yielded,  but  only  when  they  perceived  resistance  would  be  una¬ 
vailing,  and  perhaps  prove  their  own  political  destruction. 

But  very  different  from  the  British  House  of  Lords,  as  well  in  origin 
as  character,  in  responsibilities  and  sympathies,  is  the  American  Senate. 
Though  representing  in  the  Federal  Congress  the  States  in  their  sover¬ 
eign  capacity,  they  are  yet  elected  at  short  intervals  by  delegates  im¬ 
mediately  from  the  people.  While  their  responsibility  for  the  use 
of  power,  therefore,  is  ever  to  the  people,  their  sympathies  are  ever 
with  them.  As  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  national  legislature,  it  is 
with  pride  and  with  pleasure  that  I  acknowledge  its  respectability  and 
dignity,  its  conservative  character  and  importance.  Sir,  I  believe  the 
interests  of  the  people  are  safe  in  its  hands ;  and  that  on  a  question  of 
such  great  importance  as  this — of  such  unquestionable  policy,  and 
which  the  popular  voice  has  so  unequivocally  approved — it  will  never 
be  found  to  continue  a  vain  and  fruitless  opposition. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  friends  of  this  measure  must  persevere ;  it  is  a 
great  question,  affecting  the  happiness  of  thousands  who  are  now  living, 
and  of  millions  yet  to  come.  They  should  remember  that  most  of  the 
great  reforms  which  have  been  made  in  legislation  have  been  effected 
slowly  and  against  great  opposition.  Under  conservative  professions, 
and  a  timid  distrust  of  the  popular  capacity  for  self-government,  what 
a  struggle  was  maintained  against  the  enlargement  of  popular  suffrage 
and  representation  in  England  within  the  recent  memory  of  the  present 
generation — a  struggle  which  lasted  for  a  period  of  forty  years!  What 
a  struggle  against  the  Catholic  emancipation  bill,  and  still  more  recently 
against  the  removal  of  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  corn  laws, 
and  by  which  the  people  were  furnished  with  cheap  bread !  By  the 
energy  and  liberality  of  Peel,  Cobden,  and  Macaulay,  this  reform  was 
effected  ;  and  whilst  the  fruits  of  their  bold  and  humane  policy  are  now 
enjoyed  at  every  humble  English  fireside,  their  names  stand  out  in  bold 
relief,  and  will  shed  imperishable  lustre  upon  the  records  of  the  English 
Parliament.  What  a  struggle  was  maintained  in  this  country  to  defeat 
the  incorporation  of  federal  doctrines  in  the  organization  of  the  govern¬ 
ment,  and  subsequently  against  the  schemes  of  the  moneyed  interests, 
in  their  efforts  to  uphold  a  great  financial  institution  to  control  the 
currency  and  interfere  with  the  legislation  of  the  country !  What  pre¬ 
dictions  of  ruin,  blight,  and  desolation  to  all  the  varied  interests  of  our 
people  to  follow  upon  the  destruction  of  that  institution !  What  a 
struggle  have  we  not  all  witnessed,  against  the  union  of  capitalists  to 
procure  the  prevalence  of  class  legislation  in  the  form  of  a  high  pro- 


27 


tective  tariff!  What  resistance  to  the  acquisition  of  territory  since 
the  formation  of  the  Union  and  the  adoption  of  the  federal  constitution, 
in  1789 — to  the  purchase  of  Louisiana — of  the  Floridas — the  annexation 
of  Texas — the  conquest  of  New  Mexico  and  California,  which  com¬ 
pleted  our  march  across  the  continent,  from  one  great  ocean  to  the  other, 
and  established  the  western  line  in  the  survey  of  an  ocean-bound  re¬ 
public  ! 

In  every  one  of  these  instances  it  has  been  seen  that  the  popular 
mind  has  had  sagacity  enough  to  perceive  the  futility  of  the  objections 
to  the  reforms  proposed ;  that  the  spirit  of  the  age,  like  the  bounding 
spirit  of  youth,  has  laughed  at  all  the  timid  apprehensions  of  the  honest, 
though  misjudging,  advocates  of  the  interests  of  capital  to  the  exclusion 
of  labor ;  of  the  timid  and  contracted  to  the  acquisition  of  territory ; 
at  the  fears  of  the  weak,  and  the  schemes  of  the  interested;  and  in 
every  instance  in  which  the  change  has  been  made,  how  genial  and 
salutary  have  been  the  fruits  of  that  change.  How  happy  the  results 
of  the  English  reform  bill  and  the  repeal  of' the  corn  laws — the  change 
from  the  United  States  bank  to  the  independent  treasury — the  adoption 
of  the  revenue  tariff ;  and  now  last,  but  not  least,  how  fruitful  in  great 
and  glorious  results  the  passage  of  a  bill  which  places  upon  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  law  an  additional  million  of  homesteads. 

What  a  spectacle  do  we  present  at  this  time !  A  republic,  sprung 
from  an  aggregation  of  separate  and  sovereign  communities,  from 
colonies  into  States,  and  from  States  into  a  mighty  nation,  overshadow¬ 
ing  a  continent.  The  State  which,  in  a  peculiar  and  lofty  sense,  has 
established  the  liberty  and  equality  of  the  individual,  and  exalted  the 
diginity  of  human  nature,  it  would  seem,  requires  alone  this  crown¬ 
ing  act  of  magnificent  philanthropy  to  complete  the  measure  of  her 
glory. 

Once  more,  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  let  us  leave  the  images  in  our  caves. 
Let  us  come  forth  into  the  open  air.  Let  us  not  be  afraid  to  lose  sight 
of  the  headlands  and  beacon-lights  of  our  native  lands.  Let  us  trust 
to  the  stars  and  the  magnet,  as  our  fathers  did  when  they  left  the  shores 
of  Old  England,  and  ventured  out  upon  the  billows  of  a  broad  yet 
doubtful  ocean — at  first  casting  their  anchor  within  the  hospitable 
waters  of  the  Chesapeake,  and  then  again  landing  per  chance  upon 
the  bleak  and  weather-beaten  rock  of  Plymouth.  Let  us  imitate  in  a 
measure  their  example.  Let  us  muster  on  their  courage ;  let  us  mingle 

Ehilanthropy  with  national  interest,  and  give  liberty  an  additional  foot- 
old  upon  American  soil ;  and  my  word  for  it,  we  shall  yet  make  new 
discoveries  in  politics  and  legislation,  not  unworthy  of  the  race  which 
claims  as  ancestral  memories  the  Magna  Charta,  the  Bill  of  Rights,  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  Federal  Compact. 

Mr.  Chairman,  in  another  quarter  of  a  century,  within  easy  reach  of 
vision  from  this  Capitol,  that  noble  work,  now  rearing  its  shaft  upon  the 
banks  of  the  Potomac,  will  have  been  completed,  which  will  do  honor 
alike  to  the  matchless  character  which  it  is  to  commemorate  and  the 
patriotism  of  the  present  generation.  That  marble  obelisk  will  have 
climbed  the  skies  to  its  destined  height — a  marvel  alike  and  a  monu¬ 
ment.  Every  morning  sun  will  see  its  shadow  stretching  far  into  the 
State  of  Virginia,  and  in  his  evening  glow  it  will  fall  towards  the 


28 


Chesapeake.  To  latest  time  that  monument  will  stand  as  an  index 
upon  the  great  dial-plate  of  the  globe;  while  its  shadow,  revolving 
with  the  annual  march  of  the  sun  through  the  heavens,  will  mark  the 
stages  through  which  our  country  makes  its  progress  in  everything 
great,  glorious,  and  noble.  In  the  unequalled  condition  of  things  upon 
which,  from  its  proud  elevation,  that  monument  shall  then  look  down, 
I  am  deeply  persuaded  that  no  agency  will  have  been  found  more 
operative  in  producing  that  state  of  affairs,  no  cause  more  general  and 
effective  of  the  universal  prosperity  of  the  country,  than  the  disposition 
of  the  public  lands  now  proposed  by  this  bill. 


*, 


